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. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.a)Uday is liable as he being the carrier of goods should have obtained knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents in the carton.b)Uday is not liable as there can be no liability for accidental result of a lawful act without carelessness.c)Uday is not liable as he was not bound to know, in the absence of reasonable grounds of suspicion, the contents of packages offered to them for carriage.d)Uday is liable to the extent of his employees but not to Roshni.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.a)Uday is liable as he being the carrier of goods should have obtained knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents in the carton.b)Uday is not liable as there can be no liability for accidental result of a lawful act without carelessness.c)Uday is not liable as he was not bound to know, in the absence of reasonable grounds of suspicion, the contents of packages offered to them for carriage.d)Uday is liable to the extent of his employees but not to Roshni.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.a)Uday is liable as he being the carrier of goods should have obtained knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents in the carton.b)Uday is not liable as there can be no liability for accidental result of a lawful act without carelessness.c)Uday is not liable as he was not bound to know, in the absence of reasonable grounds of suspicion, the contents of packages offered to them for carriage.d)Uday is liable to the extent of his employees but not to Roshni.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.a)Uday is liable as he being the carrier of goods should have obtained knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents in the carton.b)Uday is not liable as there can be no liability for accidental result of a lawful act without carelessness.c)Uday is not liable as he was not bound to know, in the absence of reasonable grounds of suspicion, the contents of packages offered to them for carriage.d)Uday is liable to the extent of his employees but not to Roshni.Correct 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 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. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.a)Uday is liable as he being the carrier of goods should have obtained knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents in the carton.b)Uday is not liable as there can be no liability for accidental result of a lawful act without carelessness.c)Uday is not liable as he was not bound to know, in the absence of reasonable grounds of suspicion, the contents of packages offered to them for carriage.d)Uday is liable to the extent of his employees but not to Roshni.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.a)Uday is liable as he being the carrier of goods should have obtained knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents in the carton.b)Uday is not liable as there can be no liability for accidental result of a lawful act without carelessness.c)Uday is not liable as he was not bound to know, in the absence of reasonable grounds of suspicion, the contents of packages offered to them for carriage.d)Uday is liable to the extent of his employees but not to Roshni.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.a)Uday is liable as he being the carrier of goods should have obtained knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents in the carton.b)Uday is not liable as there can be no liability for accidental result of a lawful act without carelessness.c)Uday is not liable as he was not bound to know, in the absence of reasonable grounds of suspicion, the contents of packages offered to them for carriage.d)Uday is liable to the extent of his employees but not to Roshni.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.a)Uday is liable as he being the carrier of goods should have obtained knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents in the carton.b)Uday is not liable as there can be no liability for accidental result of a lawful act without carelessness.c)Uday is not liable as he was not bound to know, in the absence of reasonable grounds of suspicion, the contents of packages offered to them for carriage.d)Uday is liable to the extent of his employees but not to Roshni.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.a)Uday is liable as he being the carrier of goods should have obtained knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents in the carton.b)Uday is not liable as there can be no liability for accidental result of a lawful act without carelessness.c)Uday is not liable as he was not bound to know, in the absence of reasonable grounds of suspicion, the contents of packages offered to them for carriage.d)Uday is liable to the extent of his employees but not to Roshni.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.