Question Description
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?a)The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman’s intention.b)The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.c)The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.d)Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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: 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?a)The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman’s intention.b)The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.c)The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.d)Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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: 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?a)The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman’s intention.b)The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.c)The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.d)Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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?a)The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman’s intention.b)The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.c)The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.d)Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of 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?a)The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman’s intention.b)The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.c)The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.d)Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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?a)The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman’s intention.b)The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.c)The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.d)Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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?a)The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman’s intention.b)The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.c)The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.d)Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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?a)The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman’s intention.b)The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.c)The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.d)Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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?a)The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman’s intention.b)The public policy favoring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.c)The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.d)Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.