Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.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 > Directions: The question consists of two sta...

Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.

Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.

Decide the case.

a)
The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.
b)
The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.
c)
The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.
d)
The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as ...

Understanding Negligence
Negligence occurs when a party fails to meet the standard of care required by law, resulting in harm to another party. In this case, Ram's situation provides a clear example of negligence.
Key Points of the Case
- Duty of Care: The restaurant owner has a legal obligation to ensure that the food and beverages served are safe for consumption. This includes taking reasonable precautions to prevent contamination.
- Breach of Duty: The presence of a decomposed cockroach in the iced tea indicates a failure to maintain hygiene standards. This breach directly violates the duty owed to the customers.
- Causation: Ram’s illness (gastroenteritis) can be directly linked to the contaminated iced tea. The restaurant's negligence in ensuring safe food handling practices led to Ram's health issues.
- Damages: Ram suffered physical harm, evident through his diagnosis and subsequent medical condition. This fulfills the requirement for damages in a negligence claim.
Conclusion
Given these points, the restaurant owner is indeed liable for negligence. The duty of care owed to consumers was breached, resulting in Ram’s injury. This liability ensures that businesses uphold safety standards, protecting consumers from harm.
In contrast, the other options either misinterpret the principles of negligence or suggest unjustifiable excuses for negligence, which do not align with legal expectations for public safety. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'A', affirming the restaurant owner's liability for negligence due to the failure to provide safe products for consumption.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

SLAT Mock Test - 6 (New Pattern)
60 Ques | 60 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as ...

It is the duty of restaurant owner to take reasonable care for its customer. Therefore, restaurant owner is liable for negligence. They have to see whether the contents are fit for human consumption or not.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

PRINCIPLE: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.FACTS: D went to a café and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque, and, therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. She consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. D later complained of a stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. She sued the manufacturer of the drink for negligence.Q. Applying the afore-stated principle which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?

View answer

PRINCIPLE: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.FACTS: D went to a café and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque, and, therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. She consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. D later complained of a stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. She sued the manufacturer of the drink for negligence.Q. Applying the afore-stated principle which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?

View answer

Directions: Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The term negligence means the act of being careless and in the legal sense, it signifies the failure to exercise a standard of care which the doer, as a reasonable man, should have exercised in a particular situation. Negligence in English law is emerged as an independent cause of action only in the 18th century. Similarly, the Indian law, the IPC, 1860, contained no provision for causing the death of a person by negligence which was subsequently amended in the year 1870 by inserting Section 304A.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. In general sense, the extent of liability in tort is determined by the number of damages a party has incurred. Consequently, in criminal law, the extent of liability is determined by the amount and degree of negligence.Negligence can be characterised in three forms: Nonfeasance, means the act of failure to do something which a person should have done; Misfeasance, means the act of not doing an action properly when it should have been done properly; Malfeasance, means the act of doing something which should not have been done in the first place itself.To commit the tort of negligence, there are primarily six main essentials that are required. An act will be categorised as negligence only if all the conditions are satisfied. Duty of care is one of the essential conditions of negligence in order to make the person liable.It means that every person owes a duty of care to another person while performing an act. Although this duty exists in all acts, in negligence, the duty is legal in nature and cannot be illegal or unlawful and also cannot be of moral, ethical, or religious nature. A duty arises when the law recognises a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, and requires the defendant to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff. It is not sufficient that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff, but it must also be established which is usually determined by the judge. Its not enough for a plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care, but he must also establish that the defendant breached his duty to the plaintiff. A defendant breaches such a duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty. The plaintiff who is suing the defendant for negligence has the liability to prove that the defendants violation of duty was the actual cause of the damages incurred by him. This is often called the "but-for" causation which means that but for the defendants actions, the plaintiff would not have incurred the damages. Proximate cause means legal cause, or the cause that the law recognises as the primary cause of the injury. It may not be the first event that set in motion a sequence of events that led to an injury, and it may not be the very last event before the injury occurs.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from Negligence In Law Of Torts, blog by Ipleaders]Q.Was the judgment justified in holding the courier company responsible for the injuries sustained by the defendant due to the collapse of an offices compound wall, which the courier company failed to maintain in good condition?

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: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as PRINCIPLE and other as FACTS. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.PRINCIPLE: Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or an act which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. An action for negligence proceeds upon the principle that the person has an obligation or duty on the part of the defendant, which he/she breaches, leading to damage.FACTS: A, a surgeon, operated on B. Subsequent to the operation, B complained of pain in his abdomen. On examination, it was discovered that A had left a mop in B’s stomach while operating.

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

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.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 Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.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 Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.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 Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.Decide the case.a)The restaurant owner is liable for negligence as it owed a duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption.b)The restaurant owner is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for him to do business.c)The restaurant owner could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.d)The hotel authorities are not liable because this incident happened by chance.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam