don't just crack CLAT, come hack CLAT with us.
Negligence is a very popular subject for legal reasoning paper setters :)
Negligence is a failure to care for someone like that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm. To establish negligence, one has to prove three things:
1. Duty of care
2. Breach of such duty
3. Resulting damage
Try this question on negligence:
If one causes damage to another by negligence, he must pay for the damages arising out of such negligence.
If a person has a duty of care to another and breaches such a duty, causing legal injury to another, then he has been negligent.
Bhava was driving on the road at night without turning on his headlight. Nagar was crossing the road, and he didn't see the car coming. When he finally saw it, it was too close to him, so he jumped out of the way. In hurry, he fell on the ground, and the mobile in his pocket was damaged. Can he sue Bhava to recover the damages to his mobile?
a) No, his damage is too remote to the act of Bhava.
b) Yes, the damage suffered by Nagar was due to Bhava's negligence.
c) No, the damage suffered by Nagar was not due to Bhava's negligence.
d) none of these
Here's one more question to try:
Principle: If a person suffers mere damage but no legal injury, he is not entitled to any legal remedy.
Rafiq Ali was once suspected by police to be part of a gang of mafia. On 5th May, 2009 there was a theft in the locality and the police suspected him to be involved in the crime. He was picked up by the police and tortured in the custody for several days to obtain information and eventually realeased. Can he sue the responsible police officers?
a) No, he has suffered actual injury but no legal injury.
b) This is not a case where tort law is applicable therefore he can not recover any damages.
c) He can recover damages as he has suffered legal injury.
d) none of these