Question Description
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. Considering the fact situations of case in Question 1, if the speed of taxi was within 60 km/hr but due to some sudden mechanical part failure of the car, the car loses balance and hits the obstacle. Amit files a suit against the taxi stand.I. The taxi stand would be liable because the driver ought to have known about the defect in carII. The taxi stand would not be liable because the driver took all the precautionsIII. The taxi stand would not be because the accident was unavoidable.a)I,IIb)I,IIIc)II,IIId)Only IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 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. Considering the fact situations of case in Question 1, if the speed of taxi was within 60 km/hr but due to some sudden mechanical part failure of the car, the car loses balance and hits the obstacle. Amit files a suit against the taxi stand.I. The taxi stand would be liable because the driver ought to have known about the defect in carII. The taxi stand would not be liable because the driver took all the precautionsIII. The taxi stand would not be because the accident was unavoidable.a)I,IIb)I,IIIc)II,IIId)Only IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 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. Considering the fact situations of case in Question 1, if the speed of taxi was within 60 km/hr but due to some sudden mechanical part failure of the car, the car loses balance and hits the obstacle. Amit files a suit against the taxi stand.I. The taxi stand would be liable because the driver ought to have known about the defect in carII. The taxi stand would not be liable because the driver took all the precautionsIII. The taxi stand would not be because the accident was unavoidable.a)I,IIb)I,IIIc)II,IIId)Only IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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. Considering the fact situations of case in Question 1, if the speed of taxi was within 60 km/hr but due to some sudden mechanical part failure of the car, the car loses balance and hits the obstacle. Amit files a suit against the taxi stand.I. The taxi stand would be liable because the driver ought to have known about the defect in carII. The taxi stand would not be liable because the driver took all the precautionsIII. The taxi stand would not be because the accident was unavoidable.a)I,IIb)I,IIIc)II,IIId)Only IIICorrect 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 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. Considering the fact situations of case in Question 1, if the speed of taxi was within 60 km/hr but due to some sudden mechanical part failure of the car, the car loses balance and hits the obstacle. Amit files a suit against the taxi stand.I. The taxi stand would be liable because the driver ought to have known about the defect in carII. The taxi stand would not be liable because the driver took all the precautionsIII. The taxi stand would not be because the accident was unavoidable.a)I,IIb)I,IIIc)II,IIId)Only IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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. Considering the fact situations of case in Question 1, if the speed of taxi was within 60 km/hr but due to some sudden mechanical part failure of the car, the car loses balance and hits the obstacle. Amit files a suit against the taxi stand.I. The taxi stand would be liable because the driver ought to have known about the defect in carII. The taxi stand would not be liable because the driver took all the precautionsIII. The taxi stand would not be because the accident was unavoidable.a)I,IIb)I,IIIc)II,IIId)Only IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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. Considering the fact situations of case in Question 1, if the speed of taxi was within 60 km/hr but due to some sudden mechanical part failure of the car, the car loses balance and hits the obstacle. Amit files a suit against the taxi stand.I. The taxi stand would be liable because the driver ought to have known about the defect in carII. The taxi stand would not be liable because the driver took all the precautionsIII. The taxi stand would not be because the accident was unavoidable.a)I,IIb)I,IIIc)II,IIId)Only IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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. Considering the fact situations of case in Question 1, if the speed of taxi was within 60 km/hr but due to some sudden mechanical part failure of the car, the car loses balance and hits the obstacle. Amit files a suit against the taxi stand.I. The taxi stand would be liable because the driver ought to have known about the defect in carII. The taxi stand would not be liable because the driver took all the precautionsIII. The taxi stand would not be because the accident was unavoidable.a)I,IIb)I,IIIc)II,IIId)Only IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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. Considering the fact situations of case in Question 1, if the speed of taxi was within 60 km/hr but due to some sudden mechanical part failure of the car, the car loses balance and hits the obstacle. Amit files a suit against the taxi stand.I. The taxi stand would be liable because the driver ought to have known about the defect in carII. The taxi stand would not be liable because the driver took all the precautionsIII. The taxi stand would not be because the accident was unavoidable.a)I,IIb)I,IIIc)II,IIId)Only IIICorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.