Question Description
The 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.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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 The 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.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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The 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.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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The 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.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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.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 The 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.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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The 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.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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The 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.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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The 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.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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The 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.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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.