Question Description
Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Sharmans horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dogs bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.a)(i) and (iv)b)(i)c)(ii)d)(ii) and (iii)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Sharmans horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dogs bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.a)(i) and (iv)b)(i)c)(ii)d)(ii) and (iii)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Sharmans horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dogs bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.a)(i) and (iv)b)(i)c)(ii)d)(ii) and (iii)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Sharmans horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dogs bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.a)(i) and (iv)b)(i)c)(ii)d)(ii) and (iii)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Sharmans horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dogs bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.a)(i) and (iv)b)(i)c)(ii)d)(ii) and (iii)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Sharmans horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dogs bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.a)(i) and (iv)b)(i)c)(ii)d)(ii) and (iii)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Sharmans horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dogs bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.a)(i) and (iv)b)(i)c)(ii)d)(ii) and (iii)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Sharmans horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dogs bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.a)(i) and (iv)b)(i)c)(ii)d)(ii) and (iii)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Sharmans horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dogs bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.a)(i) and (iv)b)(i)c)(ii)d)(ii) and (iii)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.