Comprehension
The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
 (Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)
Question: 1

In the context of negligence, which of the following scenarios best demonstrates the presence of all essential elements?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • A doctor prescribes the wrong medication to a patient, but the patient's immune system prevents any harmful side effects and the patient does not suffer any injury
  • A driver runs a red light, narrowly avoiding an accident with another car and both vehicles continue without any collision or harm
  • A hotel guest tragically drowns in the swimming pool as the lifeguard was assigned duties as a part time bartender
  • A construction company delays necessary maintenance on a bridge and despite having major cracks the bridge remains functional
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The clearest example of negligence involves: A hotel guest dies in the swimming pool because the lifeguard was also working as a part-time bartender. This situation highlights these elements:

  • Duty of Care: The hotel, providing a pool, must legally protect guests by having a lifeguard.
  • Breach of Duty: The duty is broken because the lifeguard isn't watching the pool, as they're busy at the bar.
  • Causation and Damage: The guest's death directly results from the lifeguard's absence, linking the broken duty to the harm.

The other options don't fully demonstrate negligence:

  • Doctor with Wrong Medication: No harm occurred, thus no damage.
  • Driver Running Red Light: No accident or injury happened, so no damage.
  • Construction Company with Bridge Maintenance: No immediate harm, meaning no immediate damage.

Legally, the hotel scenario satisfies all requirements, as the hotel owed a duty, failed in that duty, and caused actual damage (the guest's death).

Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 2

Reasonable foreseeability means:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Mere possibility
  • Expectation of sensible person
  • Foreseeability of probable consequences of his act by an average prudent person
  • Remote possibility of a particular consequence of his consequence by a reasonable person
Show Solution

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Within legal contexts, especially regarding negligence, "reasonable foreseeability" signifies the expected consequences a prudent individual would anticipate. It's not about any possibility or a slight chance, but about a likely outcome a reasonable person would predict based on their actions.

Understanding negligence involves these key elements:

  • Duty of Care: The legal requirement to avoid actions that could foreseeably harm others.
  • Foreseeability: Predicting potential consequences from a reasonable person's viewpoint.
  • Breach of Duty: Failing to uphold the expected standard of care, causing harm.

 

Legal precedents, emphasizing "Expectation of sensible person," validate the correct interpretation of "reasonable foreseeability." This aligns with case law, such as Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, highlighting the importance of recognizing the level of care a reasonable person would demonstrate in a given scenario.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 3

A renowned judgment in which reasonable foreseeability test was discussed by the Privy Council, was:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Scott v. Shepard
  • Overseas Tankship UK Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (Wagon Mound Case)
  • Donoghue v. Stevenson
  • Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co
Show Solution

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

The key ruling on reasonable foreseeability from the Privy Council is Overseas Tankship UK Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (Wagon Mound Case). This case is crucial in negligence law, establishing that liability hinges on whether the type of harm to the plaintiff was foreseeable. The Wagon Mound case determined that the defendant was only responsible for reasonably foreseeable damage. This decision clarified negligence principles, highlighting foreseeability as the basis for legal responsibility. Negligence requires: (a) a duty of care; (b) the duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty was breached carelessly. This duty involves avoiding actions that create unreasonable risk, determined by: foreseeable damage, proximity of relationship, and whether a duty is just, fair, and reasonable.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 4

In which of the following judgment the neighbour principle was propounded?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Scott v. Shepard
  • Rylands v. Fletcher
  • Donoghue v. Stevenson
  • Overseas Tankship UK Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. (Wagon Mound Case)
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The core idea of the "neighbor principle" originated from the significant legal case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. This ruling by the House of Lords created a fundamental rule in negligence law. The court decided that individuals have a responsibility to act carefully towards those directly impacted by their behavior, considering potential consequences. The principle focused on anticipating harm and the closeness of the relationship, stating that one must be careful to avoid actions or inactions that could foreseeably harm their "neighbor." This case was crucial in shaping modern negligence law, introducing the concepts of a duty of care, failing to meet that duty, and the resulting harm.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 5

Compensation is to be assessed on the basis of:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Rough estimate of loss generally resulting from death
  • Approximate calculation of damage as a result of death
  • Legitimate expectation of loss of pecuniary benefits
  • Closeness in relationship between claimants and the deceased
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

In legal studies, particularly within the tort of negligence, compensation should be determined by the "legitimate expectation of loss of pecuniary benefits." This is the correct method because:
  1. Legitimate Expectation: This means the reasonable belief of receiving financial gain if not for the wrongful act causing the loss. Compensation in negligence aims to restore the claimant financially.
  2. Pecuniary Benefits: These are financial losses, such as wages, future earnings, or support the deceased would have provided.
  3. Negligence Law & Support: Negligence requires assessing the duty of care, its breach, and resulting damages. The focus is on foreseeable and compensable losses. The legitimate expectation of financial loss matches these principles as it's a calculable, anticipated loss from the duty breach.
  4. Case Law: Cases like Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman highlight the importance of foreseeability, proximity, and fair duty in negligence. Pecuniary loss links directly to these, needing proof of economic loss directly from the breach.
Therefore, focusing on the legitimate expectation of pecuniary benefits is essential when deciding compensation. This approach aligns with legal principles and aims to fairly address damages following a death caused by negligence.
Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts

Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam

An unpleasant tussle ensured between the TATA Sons and Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (“CPM”) in October 2016, when Mistry, who was the sixth chairman of Tata Sons, was ousted from the position of Executive Chairman of Tata Sons Limited. CPM took over as the chairman in 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement. Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote. Cyrus Investments Private limited and Sterling Investment Corporation Private Limited belonged to the Shapoorji Palloni Group in which CPM held a controlling interest (about 2% of the issued share capital of Tata Sons). Seven out of the nine directors of Tata Sons voted for CPM’s replacement after Farida Khambata abstained and Mistry was declared ineligible to vote as he was an interested director. Mistry challenged his removal, accusing the board of mismanagement and of oppressing minority shareholders. however, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected his petition. After this Mistry challenged his removal in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). In 2018, NCLAT order restored Mistry as the group’s executive chairman. Tata Sons challenged that NCLAT order in Supreme Court. CPM also challenged the order for few more relief. Supreme Court stayed NCLAT’s order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Sons and restoring his directorships in the holding company as well as three group companies, with a preliminary observation that the first impression of the order was “not good” and that the tribunal ‘could’ not have given consequential relief that had not been sought in the first place. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided the case in favour of Tata Sons. One of the issues decided by Supreme Court was that “whether the case was fit to be qualified as a situation of ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013?”. On this issue, the Supreme Court observed that “unless the removal of a person as a chairman of a company is oppressive or mismanaged or done in a prejudicial manner damaging the interests of the company, its members or the public at large, the NCLT cannot interfere with the removal of a person as a Chairman of a Company in a petition under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013.” This case highlighted the point that “an executive chairman does not have sovereign authority over the company. In corporate democracy, decision making always remains with the Board as long as they enjoy the pleasure of the shareholders. Likewise, an executive chairman will continue as long as he/she enjoys the pleasure of the Board. An assumption by the executive chairman that he/she would have a free hand in running the affairs of the company is incongruous to corporate governance and corporate democracy. The Tribunal held that the concept of ‘free hand rule’ is antithesis to collective responsibility and collective decision making”.
[Based on Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC 122].
View Solution
Alastair Hudson in his book ‘Securities Law’ First Edition (Sweet & Maxwell), 2008 at page 342, refers to ‘Restricted Offers’ and noticed that there is no contravention of Section 85 of FSMA 2000, if: “(b) the offer is made to or directed at fewer than 100 persons, other than qualified investors, per EEA State”. The purpose underlying that exemption, the author says, is mainly the fact that the offer is not being made to an appreciable section of “the public” such that the policy of the prospectus rules generally is not affected. Further, the author says that “Self-evidently, while an offer to 99 ordinary members of the public would be within the literal terms of the exemption, it would not be the sort of activity anticipated by the legislation. Moreover, if a marketing campaign were arranged such that ordinary members of the people were approached in groups of 99 people at a time in an effort to avoid the prospectus rules, then that would not appear to be within the spirit of the regulations and might be held to contravene the core principle that a regulated person must act with integrity.”
I may, therefore, indicate, subject to what has been stated above, in India that any share or debenture issue beyond forty-nine persons, would be a public issue attracting all the relevant provisions of the SEBI Act, regulations framed thereunder, the Companies Act, pertaining to the public issue. Facts clearly reveal that Saharas have issued securities to the public more than the threshold limit statutorily fixed under the first proviso to Section 67(3) and hence violated the listing provisions which may attract civil and criminal liabilities. Principles of listing, which I may later on discuss, is intended to assist public companies in identifying their obligations and responsibilities, which are continuing in nature, transparent in content and call for high degree of integrity. Obligations are imposed on the issuer on an ongoing basis. Public companies who are legally obliged to list their securities are deemed to accept the continuing obligations, by virtue of their application, prospectus and the subsequent maintenance of listing on a recognized stock exchange. Disclosure is the rule, there is no exception. Misleading public is a serious crime, which may attract civil and criminal liability. Listing of securities depends not upon one’s volition, but on statutory mandate.
[Extract from Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Para 89-91, Civil Appeal No. 9833/2011 (SC)]
View Solution
The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past, it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).
Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is not questioned.
If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry as observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 990/68, decided on 15-07- 1968], the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, decided on April 29, 1969, hereafter ‘A.K. Kraipak’].
View Solution
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognized and well defined by a catena of decisions of this Court. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promise and, in fact, the promise, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promise notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 229 of the Constitution. The rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard-and-fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. This doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. For application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the promise must establish that he suffered in detriment or altered his position by reliance on the promise.
Normally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is being applied against the Government and defence based on executive necessity would not be accepted by the court. However, if it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the court would not raise an equity in favour of the promise and enforce the promise against the Government. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. The Government can change the policy in public interest. However, it is well settled that taking cue from this doctrine, the authority cannot be compelled to do something which is not allowed by law or prohibited by law. There is no promissory estoppel against the settled proposition of law. Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made contrary to law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Thus, the Government or public authority cannot be compelled to make a provision which is contrary to law.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 193, decided on January 20, 2011, hereafter ‘Shree Sidhbali Steels’].
View Solution