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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

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 Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.

Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.

a)
Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.
b)
Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.
c)
Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.
d)
Amit is liable because he was running.

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

FREE This question is part of

Practice Test for AILET - 19

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

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

Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.

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: 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: Law of Contract mandates that two or more people are free to create mutual rights and obligations provided such rights and obligations are not opposed to public policy.Facts: Chota Bhajan enters into an agreement with Masood that he will kill Gulshan for a payment of Rs 20 lakhs. Bhajan kills Gulshan but Masood refuses to respect his part of the contract. Bhajan wants to recover the money by filing a suit.

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.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

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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 theprinciples to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care in order not to injure by an act or omission his neighbour, which he may foresee. The neighbour for this purpose is a person who is likely to be affected by the act or the omission.Facts: Amit, while rushing to board a moving train at a station pushed Anil who was walking along with a heavy load, containing fire crackers, the push resulted in slipping of the load from Anil’s hand. The crackers exploded injuring a boy Sumit standing nearby. Sumit filed a suit against Amit claiming damages.a)Amit is not liable, because Sumit is not his neighbour.b)Amit is not liable, because Anil should not be carrying load of crackers on a Railway station.c)Amit is liable, because he pushed Anil.d)Amit is liable because he was running.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam