Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of h...

Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.

Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.

He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.

Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?

a)
Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.
b)
No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.
c)
Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.
d)
No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contribute...

It was the Common law rule that anyone who by his own negligence contributed to the injury of which he complains cannot maintain an action against another in respect of it. Because, he will considered in law to be author of his wrong.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In everyday usage, the word 'negligence' denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such adequate precautions. One of the essential conditions of liability for negligence is that the defendant owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff. It must also be established that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff. And that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to perform that duty. The damage caused to the plaintiff was the result of the breach of the duty. The harm may fall into following classes physical harm i.e. harm to body, harm to reputation, harm to property, i.e. land and buildings and rights and interests pertaining thereto, and his goods, economic loss and mental harm or nervous shock.In an action for negligence following defences are available:1. Contributory Negligence: It was the Common law rule that anyone who by his own negligence contributed to the injury of which he complains cannot maintain an action against another in respect of it. Because he will be considered in law to be an author of his wrong.2. Act of God or Vis Major: It is such a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not, by any amount of human foresight have been foreseen or if foreseen, could not by any amount of human care and skill, have been resisted. Such as storm, extraordinary fall of rain, extraordinary high tide, earthquake etc.3. Inevitable Accident: Inevitable accident also works as a defence of negligence. An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. It means accident physically unavoidable.Q. Alia was a pregnant lady and was walking on the pavement. Suddenly a motor-cyclist after passing past her collided with a lorry at the distance of 15 yards from her and died instantly. Alia could see neither the deceased nor the accident but heard the loud bang noise. When she was passing the place she saw blood left on the road. Consequently, she suffered a nervous shock and gave birth to a still-born child of 8 months. She sued the representatives of the deceased motor-cyclist.

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In everyday usage, the word 'negligence' denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such adequate precautions. One of the essential conditions of liability for negligence is that the defendant owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff. It must also be established that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff. And that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to perform that duty. The damage caused to the plaintiff was the result of the breach of the duty. The harm may fall into following classes physical harm i.e. harm to body, harm to reputation, harm to property, i.e. land and buildings and rights and interests pertaining thereto, and his goods, economic loss and mental harm or nervous shock.In an action for negligence following defences are available:1. Contributory Negligence: It was the Common law rule that anyone who by his own negligence contributed to the injury of which he complains cannot maintain an action against another in respect of it. Because he will be considered in law to be an author of his wrong.2. Act of God or Vis Major: It is such a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not, by any amount of human foresight have been foreseen or if foreseen, could not by any amount of human care and skill, have been resisted. Such as storm, extraordinary fall of rain, extraordinary high tide, earthquake etc.3. Inevitable Accident: Inevitable accident also works as a defence of negligence. An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. It means accident physically unavoidable.Q. Alan was driving in the highway after drinking. Octavia was driving with the headlights turned off. They collided resulting in an injury on Octavia's head. Alan could avoid the collision, but because he was highly intoxicated, he was unable to do so. Octavia sued Alan for negligence. Will she succeed?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In everyday usage, the word 'negligence' denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such adequate precautions. One of the essential conditions of liability for negligence is that the defendant owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff. It must also be established that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff. And that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to perform that duty. The damage caused to the plaintiff was the result of the breach of the duty. The harm may fall into following classes physical harm i.e. harm to body, harm to reputation, harm to property, i.e. land and buildings and rights and interests pertaining thereto, and his goods, economic loss and mental harm or nervous shock.In an action for negligence following defences are available:1. Contributory Negligence: It was the Common law rule that anyone who by his own negligence contributed to the injury of which he complains cannot maintain an action against another in respect of it. Because he will be considered in law to be an author of his wrong.2. Act of God or Vis Major: It is such a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not, by any amount of human foresight have been foreseen or if foreseen, could not by any amount of human care and skill, have been resisted. Such as storm, extraordinary fall of rain, extraordinary high tide, earthquake etc.3. Inevitable Accident: Inevitable accident also works as a defence of negligence. An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. It means accident physically unavoidable.Q. J had a series of artificial reservoirs on his land which was constructed following accepted procedures and infrastructures and is maintained properly. In the lakes J used to carry on pisciculture and earned huge profit from it.Owing to an exceptional heavy rains, some of the reservoirs bursted and huge amount of water overflowed to nearby housings.

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In everyday usage, the word 'negligence' denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such adequate precautions. One of the essential conditions of liability for negligence is that the defendant owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff. It must also be established that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff. And that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to perform that duty. The damage caused to the plaintiff was the result of the breach of the duty. The harm may fall into following classes physical harm i.e. harm to body, harm to reputation, harm to property, i.e. land and buildings and rights and interests pertaining thereto, and his goods, economic loss and mental harm or nervous shock.In an action for negligence following defences are available:1. Contributory Negligence: It was the Common law rule that anyone who by his own negligence contributed to the injury of which he complains cannot maintain an action against another in respect of it. Because he will be considered in law to be an author of his wrong.2. Act of God or Vis Major: It is such a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of nature as could not, by any amount of human foresight have been foreseen or if foreseen, could not by any amount of human care and skill, have been resisted. Such as storm, extraordinary fall of rain, extraordinary high tide, earthquake etc.3. Inevitable Accident: Inevitable accident also works as a defence of negligence. An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. It means accident physically unavoidable.Q. Act of God or Vis major is considered to be

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.According to Winfield and Jolowicz, Negligence is the breach of a legal duty of care by the plaintiff which results in undesired damage to the plaintiff. Essentials of Negligence are 1) Existence of legal duty to take care owed by defendant to the plaintiff; 2)Breach of that duty by failure of defendant to take such care as reasonable man would have taken; 3)As a result of that breach of duty, plaintiff has suffered damage.In Donoghue v. Steveson the appellant drank a bottle of ginger beer bought by her friend which contained the decomposed remains of a snail. She fainted and fell ill. In an action to recover damages, it was held that the manufacturer was liable to the lady for negligenceRes ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase that means “the thing speaks for itself.”It is considered to be a type of circumstantial evidence which permits the court to determine that the negligence of the defendant led to an unusual event that subsequently caused injury to the plaintiff. Although generally the duty to prove that the defendant acted negligently lies upon the plaintiff but through res ipsa loquitur, if the plaintiff presents certain circumstantial facts, it becomes the burden of the defendant to prove that he was not negligent.This doctrine arose out of the case of Byrne vs Boadle(1863). The plaintiff was walking by a warehouse on the road and suffered injuries from a falling barrel of flour which rolled out of a window from the second floor. At the trial, the plaintiff’s attorney argued that the facts spoke for themselves and demonstrated the warehouse’s negligence since no other explanation could account for the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.Defences available in suit for negligence are – 1) Contributory negligence by the plaintiff – it is based on maxim volenti non fit injuria; 2) Act of God; 3) Inevitable Accident; 4) Statutory authorityQ. The maxim Res ipsa loquitor is a

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.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 Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.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 Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.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 Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry.He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car.Q. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?a)Yes, A was not careful while crossing the road and he contributed to his own injury.b)No, A was in a hurry. He cannot be held guilty.c)Yes. A should not have crossed the road at rush hour.d)No. A did not anticipate that his actions will lead to an accident.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam