Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Direction: In this section every question is...

Join the Discussion on the App

Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.

You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.

Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.

Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?

a)
The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.
b)
The defendant is liable because he was negligent
c)
The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to him
d)
None of the above

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Practice Test for AILET - 20

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and ...

The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. Legal Principles:1. Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant.4. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.5. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.Soman was the student of PRQ University. He met Pamela in a youth festival and fell in love with her. However, Pamela was not interested in having any serious relationship with Soman. Due to this, Soman went into emotional crisis and started consulting a psychologist in the PRQ Memorial Hospital. In October 2018, Soman murdered Pamela. Pamela’s parents contended that only a short time prior, Soman had expressed his intention to murder their daughter to his therapist, Dr. Surana, a psychologist employed by the University. They further alleged that Dr. Surana had warned campus police of Soman’s intentions, and that the police had briefly detained him, but then released him. Pamela’s parents filed a case of negligence against the Police Department and the University officials on two grounds: the failure to confine Soman, in spite of his expressed intentions to kill Pamela, and failure to warn Pamela or her parents. Defendants maintained that they owed no duty of care to the victim, and were immune from suit.Q. Which of the following is incorrect?

View answer

Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions. Soman was the student of PRQ University. He met Pamela in a youth festival and fell in love with her. However, Pamela was not interested in having any serious relationship with Soman. Due to this, Soman went into emotional crisis and started consulting a psychologist in the PRQ Memorial Hospital. In October 2018, Soman murdered Pamela. Pamela’s parents contended that only a short time prior, Soman had expressed his intention to murder their daughter to his therapist, Dr. Surana, a psychologist employed by the University. They further alleged that Dr. Surana had warned campus police of Soman’s intentions, and that the police had briefly detained him, but then released him. Pamela’s parents filed a case of negligence against the Police Department and the University officials on two grounds: the failure to confine Soman, in spite of his expressed intentions to kill Pamela, and failure to warn Pamela or her parents. Defendants maintained that they owed no duty of care to the victim, and were immune from suit.Q. Which of the following is incorrect?

View answer

Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. Legal Principles:1. Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant.4. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.5. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.A company called KLM, manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the target of a takeover by ABS Industries. KLM was not doing well. In March 2019, KLM had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 2019, KLM's directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed that the position was bad. The share price fell again. At this point, ABS had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 2019, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dinesh, were issued to the shareholders, which now included ABS. ABS reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, ABS found that KLM's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dinesh for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate.Q. Which of the following answers is incorrect?

View answer

Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable personwould regard as a foreseeable risk. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions. A company called KLM, manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the target of a takeover by ABS Industries. KLM was not doing well. In March 2019, KLM had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 2019, KLM's directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed that the position was bad. The share price fell again. At this point, ABS had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 2019, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dinesh, were issued to the shareholders, which now included ABS. ABS reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, ABS found that KLM's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dinesh for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate. Which of the following answers in incorrect?

View answer

Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?a)The defendant is not liable because the explosion was not foreseeable.b)The defendant is liable because he was negligentc)The defendant is not liable because the plaintiff was an onlooker and he did not owe a duty of care to himd)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam