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 respondentandrsquo;s negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.FACTS: D went to a cafandeacute; 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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.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: Negligence is a breach of duty or ...

Join the Discussion on the App

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?

a)
The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption
b)
The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.
c)
The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.
d)
The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.

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

FREE This question is part of

Test: Law Of Tort - 5

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

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

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The 2019 Act has brought in some major changes and provides for more protection to the consumers in pari materia to the earlier 1986 Act which can be seen from the comprehensive definition provided for the terms consumer and unfair trade practice. The 2019 Act expands the scope of the definition of consumer so as to include the consumers involved in online transactions and it now squarely covers the e-commerce businesses within its ambit. The 2019 Act has also widened the definition of unfair trade practices as compared to the 1986 Act which now includes within its ambit online misleading advertisements; the practice of not issuing bill/memo for the goods and services; failing to take back defective goods or deactivate defective services and refund the amount within the stipulated time mentioned in the bill or memo or within 30 days in the absence of such stipulation; and disclosing personal information of a consumer unless such disclosure is in accordance with law.The 2019 Act has also introduced the concept of unfair contract which includes those contracts which favour the manufacturers or service providers and are against the interest of the consumers such as contracts requiring manifestly excessive security deposits to be given by a consumer for the performance of contractual obligations; imposing any penalty on the consumer for a breach of the contract, which is wholly disproportionate to the loss occurred due to such breach to the other party to the contract. Such unfair consumer contracts are now covered under the 2019 Act and a complaint in this regard can now be filed by a consumer.Another major introduction in the 2019 Act is the concept of product liability which covers within its ambit the product manufacturer, product service provider and product seller, for any claim for compensation. The term product liability is defined by the 2019 Act as the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, of any product or service, related to the product to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services relating to the product. Also, the product seller has now been defined to include a person who is involved in placing the product for a commercial purpose and as such would include e-commerce platforms as well. Therefore, the ground commonly taken by e-commerce websites that they merely act as platforms or aggregators will now not be tenable before the court anymore. There are increased liability risks for manufacturers as compared to product service providers and product sellers, considering that under the 2019 Act, manufacturers will be liable in product liability action even where they successfully prove that they were not negligent or fraudulent in making the express warranty of a product. However, certain exceptions have been provided under the 2019 Act from liability claims, such as, that the product seller will not be liable where the product has been misused, altered or modified.Q.A strawberry flavoured protein shake was manufactured by "Shakes n Shop". The protein shake was meant to be taken with just curd. Sonia took the shake with milk and got a sore throat. Sonia filed a suit against "Shakes n Shop". Decide.

View answer

Directions: The sentence given below is a legal principle followed by a factual situation based on the legal principle. Choose the correct option, which relates both the principle and the situation.Legal Principle: Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existence of liability in tort.Factual Situation: Sudhir purchased a bottle of soft drink from a retailer. As he consumed more than half of the content of the bottle, he found decomposed remains of a cockroach in the bottle. He vomited and fell sick on the thought of what he has consumed. He sued the manufacturer of soft drink for negligence, though there is no contractual duty on the part of manufacturer. In your opinion, is the suit maintainable against the manufacturer or the retailer?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.The Pesticide Management Bill, 2020, is a long-overdue law on this critical segment of agriculture, in the making since 2008, to replace the obsolete Insecticides Act, 1968. Globally, India is the fourth-largest producer of pesticides. As a first step, the proposed legislation covers all classes of pesticides, not just insecticides as the current law does.Taking into account advances in modern pest management science and the ill effects of synthetic pesticides, the Pesticide Management Bill should bring India's pesticide sector in line with global norms, to some of which India has signed up. The food safety law already has limits on pesticide residue. It would be desirable for the government to subject the Bill to public comment.The present law addresses manufacturing, sale, import, transport, use, and distribution of insecticides. The Bill will cover the life cycle of pesticides from manufacture to disposal and will include regulation of export, packaging, labelling, pricing, storage, and advertisement. Penalties on manufacturers for non-compliance with rules and regulations would be stiffer.An important focus of the Bill is on labelling-manufacturers will be required by law to specify clear and specific information on material and chemical composition, and dosage of use. The labels must carry this information in the local language to ensure that farmers are properly informed. This is critical. There is a tendency of overuse of pesticides by farmers, often driven by ignorance.The Bill should also have provision for technical assistance to farmers on pesticide use from agriculture extension services centers. This is vital for farm exports. Proposals for a pool for compensating farmers might sound good but would diffuse culpability, which must be rigorously established before seeking compensation. Empowering states to set locally relevant norms would be a good idea.While the Bill is a major step forward, it needs to go beyond regulating chemical pesticides. It must take into account non-synthetic pesticides, including research and development.Q. If a manufacturer is supplying pesticides to the farmers at a village in Tamil Nadu. What is the most important thing for the manufacturer to ensure according to the proposed Pesticide Management Bill, 2020?

View answer

Traditionally, the first firm to commercialize a new technology has benefited from the unique opportunity to shape product definitions, forcing followers to adapt to a standard or invest in an unproven alternative. Today, however, the largest payoffs may go to companies that lead in developing integrated approaches for successful mass production and distribution.Producers of the Beta format for videocassette recorders (VCR’s), for example, were first to develop the VCR commercially in 1975, but producers of the rival VHS (Video Home System) format proved to be more successful at forming strategic alliances with other producers and distributors to manufacture and market their VCR format. Seeking to maintain exclusive control over VCR distribution, Beta producers were reluctant to form such alliances and eventually lost ground to VHS in the competition for the global VCR market.Despite Beta’s substantial technological head start and the fact that VHS was neither technically better nor cheaper than Beta, developers of VHS quickly turned a slight early lead in sales into a dominant position. Strategic alignments with producers of prerecorded tapes reinforced the VHS advantage. The perception among consumers that prerecorded tapes were more available in VHS format further expanded VHS’s share of the market. By the end of the 1980’s, Beta was no longer in production.Q. The alignment of producers of VHS-format VCRs with producers of prerecorded videotapes is most similar to which of the following?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about 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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.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: 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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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?a)The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumptionb)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.c)The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.d)The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam