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.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?a)The judgment was not justified because the defendant has a reasonable obligation to ensure their own safety and well-being.b)The courier company authorities were liable since they had a duty to maintain the office premises. Therefore, the judgment is justified.c)The courier company authorities were not liable because it was the responsibility of the construction company to use good quality construction materials.d)The judgment was justified because the law specifies that the company would be held responsible for any harm caused to an employee, whether within or outside the office premises.Correct 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.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?a)The judgment was not justified because the defendant has a reasonable obligation to ensure their own safety and well-being.b)The courier company authorities were liable since they had a duty to maintain the office premises. Therefore, the judgment is justified.c)The courier company authorities were not liable because it was the responsibility of the construction company to use good quality construction materials.d)The judgment was justified because the law specifies that the company would be held responsible for any harm caused to an employee, whether within or outside the office premises.Correct 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.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?a)The judgment was not justified because the defendant has a reasonable obligation to ensure their own safety and well-being.b)The courier company authorities were liable since they had a duty to maintain the office premises. Therefore, the judgment is justified.c)The courier company authorities were not liable because it was the responsibility of the construction company to use good quality construction materials.d)The judgment was justified because the law specifies that the company would be held responsible for any harm caused to an employee, whether within or outside the office premises.Correct 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.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?a)The judgment was not justified because the defendant has a reasonable obligation to ensure their own safety and well-being.b)The courier company authorities were liable since they had a duty to maintain the office premises. Therefore, the judgment is justified.c)The courier company authorities were not liable because it was the responsibility of the construction company to use good quality construction materials.d)The judgment was justified because the law specifies that the company would be held responsible for any harm caused to an employee, whether within or outside the office premises.Correct 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.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?a)The judgment was not justified because the defendant has a reasonable obligation to ensure their own safety and well-being.b)The courier company authorities were liable since they had a duty to maintain the office premises. Therefore, the judgment is justified.c)The courier company authorities were not liable because it was the responsibility of the construction company to use good quality construction materials.d)The judgment was justified because the law specifies that the company would be held responsible for any harm caused to an employee, whether within or outside the office premises.Correct 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.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?a)The judgment was not justified because the defendant has a reasonable obligation to ensure their own safety and well-being.b)The courier company authorities were liable since they had a duty to maintain the office premises. Therefore, the judgment is justified.c)The courier company authorities were not liable because it was the responsibility of the construction company to use good quality construction materials.d)The judgment was justified because the law specifies that the company would be held responsible for any harm caused to an employee, whether within or outside the office premises.Correct 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.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?a)The judgment was not justified because the defendant has a reasonable obligation to ensure their own safety and well-being.b)The courier company authorities were liable since they had a duty to maintain the office premises. Therefore, the judgment is justified.c)The courier company authorities were not liable because it was the responsibility of the construction company to use good quality construction materials.d)The judgment was justified because the law specifies that the company would be held responsible for any harm caused to an employee, whether within or outside the office premises.Correct 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.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?a)The judgment was not justified because the defendant has a reasonable obligation to ensure their own safety and well-being.b)The courier company authorities were liable since they had a duty to maintain the office premises. Therefore, the judgment is justified.c)The courier company authorities were not liable because it was the responsibility of the construction company to use good quality construction materials.d)The judgment was justified because the law specifies that the company would be held responsible for any harm caused to an employee, whether within or outside the office premises.Correct 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.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?a)The judgment was not justified because the defendant has a reasonable obligation to ensure their own safety and well-being.b)The courier company authorities were liable since they had a duty to maintain the office premises. Therefore, the judgment is justified.c)The courier company authorities were not liable because it was the responsibility of the construction company to use good quality construction materials.d)The judgment was justified because the law specifies that the company would be held responsible for any harm caused to an employee, whether within or outside the office premises.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.