All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Principle: if an injury is the result of a re... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it
Fact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?
  • a)
    No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.
  • b)
    Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.
  • c)
    Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.
  • d)
    No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuria
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable caus...
Duty to Prevent the Risk and Liability of the DCA
Under the principle stated, if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person or authority responsible is liable for damages because they have a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it. In this case, Janet, a housewife, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. She sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field, for public nuisance and negligence, claiming that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrences.
The DCA argues that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, suggesting that the risk was unforeseeable. However, this argument does not absolve the DCA of its duty to prevent the risk and be liable for damages. Here's why:
  • Reasonable Foreseeability: The fact that 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years indicates that there was a foreseeable risk of balls leaving the field and causing injury. This establishes the principle of reasonable foreseeability, which implies that the DCA should have reasonably anticipated such incidents and taken appropriate measures to prevent them.
  • Duty of Care: As the owner of the cricket field, the DCA has a duty of care towards the safety of individuals in the vicinity, including Janet. This duty requires the DCA to take reasonable measures to prevent any foreseeable harm or injury. Having a fence of sufficient height to prevent balls from leaving the field would be considered a reasonable measure in this context.
  • Public Nuisance and Negligence: Janet's claim of public nuisance and negligence is based on the DCA's failure to prevent the escape of balls from the field, which resulted in her injury. By not having a fence high enough to prevent such occurrences, the DCA can be seen as breaching its duty of care and causing a public nuisance.
Based on these considerations, the correct answer is C: Yes. The DCA has a duty to prevent the reasonably foreseeable risk of balls leaving the cricket field and is liable for damages because it failed to take reasonable measures to address this risk. Janet is entitled to compensation for her injury. The argument that only 10 balls had escaped in the previous 10 years does not absolve the DCA of its responsibility, as even a small number of incidents establishes the foreseeability of the risk and the need for preventive measures.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. Legal Principles:1. Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant.4. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.5. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.Soman was the student of PRQ University. He met Pamela in a youth festival and fell in love with her. However, Pamela was not interested in having any serious relationship with Soman. Due to this, Soman went into emotional crisis and started consulting a psychologist in the PRQ Memorial Hospital. In October 2018, Soman murdered Pamela. Pamela’s parents contended that only a short time prior, Soman had expressed his intention to murder their daughter to his therapist, Dr. Surana, a psychologist employed by the University. They further alleged that Dr. Surana had warned campus police of Soman’s intentions, and that the police had briefly detained him, but then released him. Pamela’s parents filed a case of negligence against the Police Department and the University officials on two grounds: the failure to confine Soman, in spite of his expressed intentions to kill Pamela, and failure to warn Pamela or her parents. Defendants maintained that they owed no duty of care to the victim, and were immune from suit.Q. Which of the following is incorrect?

Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions. Soman was the student of PRQ University. He met Pamela in a youth festival and fell in love with her. However, Pamela was not interested in having any serious relationship with Soman. Due to this, Soman went into emotional crisis and started consulting a psychologist in the PRQ Memorial Hospital. In October 2018, Soman murdered Pamela. Pamela’s parents contended that only a short time prior, Soman had expressed his intention to murder their daughter to his therapist, Dr. Surana, a psychologist employed by the University. They further alleged that Dr. Surana had warned campus police of Soman’s intentions, and that the police had briefly detained him, but then released him. Pamela’s parents filed a case of negligence against the Police Department and the University officials on two grounds: the failure to confine Soman, in spite of his expressed intentions to kill Pamela, and failure to warn Pamela or her parents. Defendants maintained that they owed no duty of care to the victim, and were immune from suit.Q. Which of the following is incorrect?

Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?

Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer. Legal Principles:1. Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.3. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant.4. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.5. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.A company called KLM, manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the target of a takeover by ABS Industries. KLM was not doing well. In March 2019, KLM had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 2019, KLM's directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed that the position was bad. The share price fell again. At this point, ABS had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 2019, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dinesh, were issued to the shareholders, which now included ABS. ABS reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, ABS found that KLM's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dinesh for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate.Q. Which of the following answers is incorrect?

Direction: Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.Legal Principles: Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable personwould regard as a foreseeable risk. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions. A company called KLM, manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the target of a takeover by ABS Industries. KLM was not doing well. In March 2019, KLM had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 2019, KLM's directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed that the position was bad. The share price fell again. At this point, ABS had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 2019, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dinesh, were issued to the shareholders, which now included ABS. ABS reached a shareholding of 29.9% of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code's rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, ABS found that KLM's accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dinesh for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate. Which of the following answers in incorrect?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: if an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent itFact: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the district cricket association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. DCA claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the DCA to prevent the risk? Is the DCA liable to compensate Jenet?a)No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk.b)Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field.c)Yes As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The DC A is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.d)No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti nonjit injuriaCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup