Principle: "If, as a result of carelessness, one injures another, he is legally liable to the injured victim

for resulting damages, unless the victim's own carelessness also contributed to causing the accident.
However, if one becomes aware that another has, through his own fault, placed himself in peril of
which he is unaware, or from which he cannot extricate himself, and the one so aware can still avoid
injury to the helpless victim through the exercise of reasonable care, the one so aware will be liable
for injuries which he causes the helpless victim through failure to take advantage of this ultimate
opportunity to save the victim from such injuries".

Q.1 Facts: Chatterjee carelessly left a pole protruding across a public road. Mukherjee, riding a
motorcycle, saw the pole but, since he was driving at a speed substantially above the posted limit, lie
collided With the pole and was injured. In an action by Mukherjee against Chatterjee,

(a) Mukhedee will win because if it had not been for Chatterjee's carelessness, Mukhedee would not
have been injured.

(b) Mukhedee will win because Chatterjee had an opportunity to prevent the injury by putting up a
warning.

(c) Mukhedee will lose because he was already breaking the law by driving too fast.

(d) Mukhedee will lose because if he had not been speeding, he would not have been injured..

Q.2 Dwivedi ignored a red light-and drove his car onto the railway tracks as a train was approaching.
The motor stalled and Dwivedi did not have sufficient time to get the car across the tracks. Trivedi,
the railway engine driver, saw Dwivedi and could have stopped the train had he not been waving at a
group of girls jogging along a road beside the track. They collided and Dwivedi was injured.

In an action by Dwivedi against Trivedi,

(a) Dwivedi will win because he could not get to safety in time.

(b) Dwivedi will win because Trivedi was operating the train in a careless manner.

(c) 'Dwivedi will lose because Trivedi was relying on the warning signal.

(d) Dwivedi will lose because he did not obey the red signal.

Q.3 Principles:

(a) Manufacturer is liable for the latent defects in the goods manufactured by him.

(b) A seller is relieved of any liability for the defects in goods sold by him, if the purchaser chooses his
goods by trade name and not by relying upon the judgment and skill of the seller.

Facts: Krishnan went to Rama Stores and asked the shop-keeper to give him a good bread. The shop-
keeper op.-keeper replied: "People normally buy Modern Bread from me". Krishnan bought a packet
of Modern Bread. It so happened that there was a stone embedded in one of the bread slices and it
broke Krishnan's teeth, while eating the bread. Krishnan seeks compensation from Rama Stores and
Modern Bread Company.

(a) Modern Bread Company alone will be liable.

(b) Rama stores alone liable

(c) Both are liable

(d)

Q.4 Principle - 1 - Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man .would do,
breach of which, if it causes damage, makes one liable to the person who suffered loss.

Principle – 2- One owes a duty of care to another if a reasonable man can foresee that he will be
affected by the breach of duty.

Principle – 3-One is not liable if the injured party volunteers to take the risk.

Fact : A cricket match is being held in a stadium. X, being unable to afford the ticket price, is viewing
the cricket match sitting atop a branch of a nearby tree. When a batsman hits a ball over the boundary,
the ball in turn hits A and he sustains injury on his spinal chord due to fall from the tree.

(a) The organizers and the stadium owners are liable to compensate

(b) The cricketer who hits the ball is liable along with the organizers, but the stadium owner is not
responsible.

(c) Nobody is responsible.

(d) Cannot be determined

Principle: A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others.

Facts: As the bus was leaving the platform, Basappa rushed and boarded the bus keeping the door
open. Beerappa, who was standing at the edge of the platform, was hit by the door" of the moving
bus and injured. Beerappa takes Basappa to court demanding monetary compensation.

(a) Basappa is liable to Beerappa for not having taken care to close the door of the moving bus.

(b) Basappa is not liable to Beerappa, as it was the duty of the conductor of the bus to close the door.

(c) Basappa is not liable to Beerappa, as it was the duty of the latter to take sufficient care, while
standing on the platform, as not 'to expose oneself to such accidental harm.

Principle: "If, as a result of carelessness, one injures another, he is legally liable to the injured victim
for resulting damages, unless the victim's own carelessness also contributes to causing the
accident".

Facts :A carelessly left an iron pole protruding across a public road..200 meters from that spot was a
traffic signal indicating the speed limit to be at 30 kmph. B, riding a scooter at 60 kmph, noticed the
protrusion from a distance, but still could not avoid it, collided with the police and was injured. In an
action by B against A,-

(a) B will succeed because A was careless.

(b) B will succeed because A could have avoided the mishap by putting up a warning

(c) B will lose as he was driving very fast

(d) B will lose for some other reason.

Principle: A person is liable for all the injurious consequences of his careless act.

Facts: Ram, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes
escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.

(a) Ram is liable to compensate the child’s family for his careless act

(b) Ram is not liable to anything as such things keep happening.

© Ram is not in a position to compensate as he is poor

(d) The child should have taken adequate care from protecting herself from the snake bite.

Krishnan and Kannan were neighbours in a residential locality. Kannan started a typing class in a part
of his house and his typing sound disturbed Krishnan who could not put up with any kind of continuous
noise. He filed a suit against Kannan.

(a) Kannan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house

(b) Kannan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Krishnan's delicate nature

0(c) Kannan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Krishnan

(d) None of the above

Principle : Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which
he can foresee would injure his neighbour, the neighbour for this purpose is any person whom he
should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.

Facts-Krishnan, while driving a car at a high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The
cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by,
suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming
damages.

(a) Krishna will be liable, because he owned a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road
including Lakshmi

(b) Krishna will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous
shock as a result of his act..

(c) Krishna will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully

(d) None of the above

. The last opportunity rule' fixes the liability on the person who had the last opportunity of avoiding
an accident by taking ordinary care.

A fettered the forefeet of his donkey and left the donkey in a narrow highway. 'B' was driving through
the highway in a horse driven wagon. The wagon was going too fast and killed the donkey. 'A' sued B.

A) 'A' was at fault

B) 'A' fettered the fore leg of his donkey. He was negligent

C) Despite 'A' being negligent, 'B' could still avoid the accident

D) None of these
PRINCIPLE : A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others.

FACTUAL SITUATION : As the bus was leaving the platform, Kashish rushed and boarded the bus
keeping the door open. Ashish, who was standing at the edge of the platform, was hit by the door of
the moving bus and injured. Ashish claims compensation from Kashish.

A. Kashish is liable to Ashish for not having taken care to close the door of the moving bus

B. Kashish is not liable to Ashish as it was the duty of the conductor of the bus to close the door

C. Kashish is not liable to Ashish, as it was the duty of the latter, to take sufficient care, while standing
on the platform, as not to expose oneself to such accidental harm

D. None of the above

The phrase 'duty of care' means you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you
can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. In this definition the word 'neighbor
indicates

(a) All persons who can be so closely and directly affected, that you ought to reasonably have their in
contemplation.

(b) All people living in your vicinity, whom you owe a social duty

(c) Your next door resident

35. Principle: Negligence is actionable in law. In simple terms, negligence is the failure to take
proper care over something. CLAT 2017

Facts: A, a doctor, conducted a hysterectomy sincerely on B and left a small cotton swab inside the
abdomen. As a consequence of which B developed some medical problems and had to undergo
another surgery. Is A liable?

1. Liability for negligence does not arise here as A performed the operation sincerely

2. As only a small swab was left in the abdomen, there was no negligence.

3. A is not liable as he did not foresee any consequences at the time of surgery.

4. A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery.

Ans: 1

4. LEGAL PRINCIPLE : Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or
omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour, the neighbour for this purpose is any
person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act. AILET 2015

FACTUAL SITUATTON: Krish while driving a car at a high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a
cyclist . The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lekha , a pregnant woman
passing by , suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lekha filed a suit against Krishna
claiming damages.

DECISION :

(a) Krish will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road
including Lekha.
(b) Krish will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lekha suffering from nervous shock as
a result of his act.

(c) Krish will be liable to Lekha because he failed to drive carefully

(d) None of the above

Ans- a

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Where the parents of a minor child due to their negligence allow the child an
opportunity to commit a tort, the parents are liable. AILET 2014

FACTUAL SITUATION: The father supplied an airgun to his son who was about to turn 18 next month.
After some complaints of mischief, the father took the gun away and placed it in a corner of their
storeroom which was used by the family to store surplus and other unnecessary stuff. The son took it
out of the store and shot A. A sued his father. Is the father liable?

DECISION: a) No. he took all necessary steps to prevent the son from using the gun. b) Yes, he was the
one who gave the gun and allowed him to use it by giving an opportunity. c) No, the son was almost
17 years and 11 months of age; hence, he could think about his well being and interest. d) Yes, the
father was negligent in disposing off the gun.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. Medical professionals are not immune from liability in tort on ground of
negligence. AILET 2014

2. Services rendered to a patient by a doctor (except when given free of charge) by way of
consultation, diagnosis and treatment fall in the definition of “service” under the Consumer Protection
Act.

In case of negligence, the doctors are liable in tort as well as under the Consumer Protection Act.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A was the only child of his parents. Once he had high fever and his parents called
a doctor at home. This doctor used to work at a respectable hospital in Delhi. The doctor administered
certain medicines and asked the nurse to stay with him for the night and administer to him a
chloroquine injection. This injection was generally not suitable for young children. The nurse, without
prior test, followed instructions of the doctor and gave the injection. As a result of an allergic reaction,
the child died. The parents sued the nurse and the doctor. DECISION: a) Doctor was rendering a
“service”; hence liable to pay compensation.

b) Doctor was not liable as he came to their home to give personal treatment and was not in the
Hospital. c) This is not a service; hence not liable. d) Only the nurse is liable

LEGAL PRINCIPLES : AILET 2013 Ans: 4

1) Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something
which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.

2) Defendant's duty of care depends on the reasonable foreseeability of injury

which may be caused to the plaintiff on breach of duty.

FACTUAL SITUATION : The defendants employees of the Municipal Corporation

opened a manhole in the street and in the evening left the manhole open and covered
it by a canvass shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff,

an eight years old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it

there, when he stumbled over it and fell into the manhole. A violent explosion followed

and the plaintiff suffered burn injuries. The defendants are

DEGISION :

(a) Not liable because the injury to plaintiff is not foreseeable

(b) Liable because they should have completed the work before they left

(c) Not liable because they acted reasonably

(d) Liable because they acted unreasonably

Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of

care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff

can take civil action against the respondent, if the respordent‟s negligence causes the plaintiff

injury or loss of property.

Facts: „D‟ went to a café and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque,

and, therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. She („D‟) consumed some of the

contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains

of a snail in decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. „D‟ later complained of a

stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe

shock. She sued the manufacturer of the drink for negligence.

Applying the afore-stated principle. which of the following den'vations is CORRECT as regards

liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?

(A) The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take

reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption

(B) The manufacturer is not liable for negligence. as there is no direct contract between „D‟ and

the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer („D‟)

(C) The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very

difficult for the manufacturers to do business

(D) The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence