Question Description
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?a)Yes, because Alan must face consequences of his act.b)Yes, because Alan breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people driving on the highway.c)No, because Alan only had a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.d)No, because both of them contributed to the negligent act.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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: 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?a)Yes, because Alan must face consequences of his act.b)Yes, because Alan breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people driving on the highway.c)No, because Alan only had a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.d)No, because both of them contributed to the negligent act.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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: 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?a)Yes, because Alan must face consequences of his act.b)Yes, because Alan breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people driving on the highway.c)No, because Alan only had a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.d)No, because both of them contributed to the negligent act.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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?a)Yes, because Alan must face consequences of his act.b)Yes, because Alan breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people driving on the highway.c)No, because Alan only had a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.d)No, because both of them contributed to the negligent act.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 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?a)Yes, because Alan must face consequences of his act.b)Yes, because Alan breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people driving on the highway.c)No, because Alan only had a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.d)No, because both of them contributed to the negligent act.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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?a)Yes, because Alan must face consequences of his act.b)Yes, because Alan breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people driving on the highway.c)No, because Alan only had a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.d)No, because both of them contributed to the negligent act.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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?a)Yes, because Alan must face consequences of his act.b)Yes, because Alan breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people driving on the highway.c)No, because Alan only had a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.d)No, because both of them contributed to the negligent act.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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?a)Yes, because Alan must face consequences of his act.b)Yes, because Alan breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people driving on the highway.c)No, because Alan only had a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.d)No, because both of them contributed to the negligent act.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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?a)Yes, because Alan must face consequences of his act.b)Yes, because Alan breached the duty of care that he owes to the other people driving on the highway.c)No, because Alan only had a narrow window of time to avoid the collision.d)No, because both of them contributed to the negligent act.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.