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 andquot;but-forandquot; 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Directions: Read the given passage and 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. It's 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 defendant's 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 defendant's 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. Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?

a)
The owner would be held liable as it is the owner's responsibility to adequately secure their property.
b)
The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.
c)
No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.
d)
Either 1 or 2

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Directions: Read the given passage and answer the question that follow...

The interior designer would be considered responsible because her negligence in leaving the house unlocked signifies a breach of her duty of care. In the realm of negligence, every individual owes a duty of care to others when performing actions, and a failure to fulfill this duty results in liability for the tort of negligence.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Read the given passage and answer the question that follow...

Explanation of Liability in the Given Scenario
In the case of the theft of the valuable antique painting, the responsibility lies primarily with the interior designer, Mickey. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the reasoning behind this conclusion:
Duty of Care
- Mickey, as an interior designer, has a legal duty of care to ensure the property she is working on is secure while she is engaged in renovations.
- This duty includes taking reasonable precautions to protect the property and its contents from theft or damage.
Breach of Duty
- By leaving the house unlocked and unattended, Mickey failed to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling her duty.
- This act of negligence constitutes a breach of the legal duty she owed to the property owner and the items within it.
Actual Cause of Damages
- The theft of the painting directly resulted from Mickey's negligence. If she had properly secured the house, the theft might not have occurred.
- The “but-for” test applies here; but for Mickey leaving the house unlocked, the painting would likely still be in its rightful place.
Proximate Cause
- The proximate cause of the theft can be attributed to Mickey's actions. Although thefts can occur even with precautions, leaving a property unattended and unlocked significantly increases the risk.
Conclusion
- Therefore, option (b) is correct: The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care. This scenario illustrates the fundamental principles of negligence where the failure to act responsibly leads to liability for damages incurred.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the 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.Is Richard responsible for the fire that occurred in Sunville apartment due to his installation of non-insulated wires when working on the new project, considering that Sunville apartment is an old building prone to water leakages that required careful repairs?

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 following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to lif e) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Under the 'supervision and control' test, the employer has the right to tell the employee what to do, how, when and where to do the job. Apply this 'supervision and control' test on Uber and Ola drivers to see whether they are independent contractors or employees.

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The Supreme Court agreed to examine the public interest litigation seeking social security benefits to gig workers and platform workers engaged by Uber, Ola Cabs, Swiggy and Zomato. It was argued before the SC that gig workers and platform workers need to be recognised as workmen within the meaning of all the applicable social security legislation. Referring to the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, it was contended that these workers are unorganised workers within its meaning and hence, they are entitled to registration and social security under it. These workers are not what their companies have been claiming, which is that they are independent contractors.The Court's attention was drawn to the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment that has analysed the contract between Uber and the employee and found that the contract is only a subterfuge and the real relationship between Uber and its employee is that of employer and employee. The plea asserts that the denial of social security like pension and health insurance to gig workers and platform workers is an affront to workers' right to life and right against forced labour that are secured by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (right to lif e) and 23 (prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour) of the Constitution of India. The plea seeks a declaration from the court that gig workers are unorganised workers and/or wage workers within the meaning of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and hence entitled to be registered under the said Act.An independent contractor works on their own, they are responsible for taxes and insurance. If they work for an agency, that agency may be responsible for paying their taxes. It depends on the relationship between the worker and the organisation. In the alternative, the petitioners seek the benefit of the existing social security laws since according to them, the relationship between the aggregator and the driver is one of employer and employee. The mere fact that their employers call themselves aggregators and enter into so-called partnership agreements does not take away from the fact that there exists a jural relationship of employer and employee between them, the plea argues. The said contracts, the plea states, are a mere device to disguise the nature of the relationship, which is de jure and de facto a relationship of employer and worker, being a contract of employment.Q. Dentists, veterinarians, and lawyers practising independently can be classified as

View answer

Relationships are how we relate to others. We have relationships with everyone we know and those who are close to us. Each and every interaction we have with another person is the act of relating. If we have a problem relating to others, it affects our ability to have supportive relationships. We have to ask ourselves if our relationships are supportive, and if they are not, then ask why they are not,Everyone wants the perfect romance or marriage, but not everyone looks at the mechanics of how to have one. If we fail to have supportive relationships in our life, how can we have the "perfect love" relationships? Through the act of supporting, we honour and validate who the other person is.This is turn, validates who we are. So, both are supported; no one loses; no egos are involved; and, so doing, we honour the relationship.This is what it means to have a supportive relationship. This is the desired goal. Now, how do we accomplish it?Our conduct patterns, 'positive' or 'negative' get set as we grow up. In order to clear a problem, one must identify the original cause which created a behavioural pattern, move through the experience of that situation and experience the emotions associated with it.The healing process is a time when we must love the self. If we beat up the self about the experience which had caused us harm or our past reaction to it, then we cannot heal. In being loving to the self, we validate what we had experienced at that time.Our emotions are always valid. So, it is important for us to do this self-validation in order to heal. Love is the energy which helps us heal-whether we give this love to ourselves or receive it from another.Loving relations start with the self. When we look at having supportive relationship in our life, why not start with the self?Because that is where love comes from. This is what transforms our relationships and our lives. We must love the self first. And we cannot do that until we have healed and become whole. Spiritually we must rise, and our spiritual quotient must be high.For, it is not about what we can receive from love, but what we can contribute or give to love. The more we give, the more are the returns.Q. What is referred to as 'the desired goal' in the above paragraph?

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: 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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.Who would be considered responsible for the theft of a valuable antique painting worth 50,000/- that occurred while Mickey, an interior designer, was engaged in renovating a house, and she left the house unlocked and unattended?a)The owner would be held liable as it is the owners responsibility to adequately secure their property.b)The interior designer would be held liable as her negligence in leaving the house open constitutes a breach of her duty of care.c)No one would be held liable as theft can occur despite taking the utmost precautions.d)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam