Introduction to Law of Torts - Free MCQ Practice Test with solutions, CLAT

According to Lord Atkin's strong neighbour principle, a person has a duty of care to:

• Persons who are so closely and directly affected by his actions that he should reasonably consider them when thinking about those actions.

This principle indicates that the duty of care extends beyond just contractual relationships, meaning that even without a direct contract, a manufacturer can be liable for negligence if their product causes harm to consumers.

The majority in the House of Lords concluded that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, recognising the importance of protecting individuals from harm caused by defective products.

In the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, the main reason the plaintiff won was because the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, despite the absence of a contract. The court ruled that manufacturers must ensure their products are safe, especially when consumers cannot inspect them for defects. This decision was based on the idea that consumers are directly affected by the manufacturer's actions, and they should be protected from harm caused by negligence.

Lord Macmillan famously said, “the categories of negligence are never closed.” This reflects the idea that negligence law evolves with new situations.

Lord Buckmaster and Lord Tomlin dissented because they feared such a broad duty would open the floodgates and lead to indeterminate liability. This concern is reflected in option (b).

The extract mentions foreseeability, but does not say that reasonable foreseeability is the sole test for duty of care. Modern duty of care involves foreseeability + proximity + policy considerations.
Thus, option (b) is not supported.
All other statements are reflected in the passage.

The case is foundational because it created the “neighbour principle”, establishing the general duty of care in modern negligence law.
It did not introduce strict or absolute liability.

Blackburn J.’s formulation imposes strict liability—if a person brings something likely to cause mischief if it escapes, they must keep it at their peril. Liability arises even without negligence or intent.

Lord Cairns added that liability arises only when the defendant makes a “non-natural use” of land. This limitation narrows the scope of strict liability.

An ordinary domestic water tank is a natural or ordinary use of land.
Strict liability generally applies only to dangerous, unusual, or extraordinary uses, such as explosives, toxic chemicals, or wild animals.

I. Applies even without personal negligence ✔
II. Negligence of independent contractors is a defence ✘ (not a defence; defendant remains liable)
III. It is generally regarded as a branch of private nuisance ✔

Correct Answer: (b) I and III only
The rule imposes liability even without negligence, and modern courts (especially Cambridge Water) treat it as a subset of nuisance.
Independent contractors’ negligence is not a defence.

The rule creates strict liability, but not absolute liability—it is subject to:

• non-natural use requirement,
• defences (act of God, plaintiff's default, statutory authority, consent, etc.).

Fletcher was held liable even though he was personally not negligent.
Liability was based on bringing a dangerous thing (water in a large reservoir) onto land which escaped.