All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Direction: Given legal principles to the fac... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Direction: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answer
Principle: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.
Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.
  • a)
    The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a pet
  • b)
    The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by M
  • c)
    M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by M
  • d)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Direction: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of th...
In this case, M is not liable. M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by M. The principle states: "The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant." In this case the tiger escaped due to the act of the stranger which was not foreseen by M.
Hence, the correct option is (C).
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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

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?

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?

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?

Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers.You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices.Principle: A person is liable for only those damages which he can reasonably foresee.Facts: On one construction site the defendant was negligent and an asbestos cement cover slipped from his hand to fall into a tub of hot molten liquid. In moments there was an explosion and the plaintiff who was standing nearby watching the construction in progress gets injured. It was found that the explosion was caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat action on asbestos. The injuries were caused by a complex chemical reaction of heat acting on asbestos. The injuries were caused by steam which was produced in this reaction and not by the molten liquid. Is the defendant liable?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Direction: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Direction: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect 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: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect 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: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Direction: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect 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: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Given legal principles to the facts provided in each of the questions and select the most appropriate answerPrinciple: When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land. The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.Facts: M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.a)The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a petb)The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by Mc)M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by Md)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup