Legal Reasoning Questions for CLAT | QB Set 60

In the landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson, the foundation of modern negligence law was established. The Court held that a person owes a duty of care to others who may be affected by their actions. Negligence arises when a person fails to exercise reasonable care, causing harm or injury to another. To establish negligence, four essential elements must be proved: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. The law of torts aims to provide compensation to victims who suffer due to careless conduct. Negligence can occur in various situations such as medical treatment, road accidents, professional services, and public safety matters. Courts generally apply the “reasonable person test” to determine whether the defendant acted carefully under the circumstances.

Questions

Question 1

Rohan visited a shopping mall owned by Karan Developers Pvt. Ltd. While walking near the entrance during heavy rain, he slipped on accumulated water because no warning signs had been placed. Rohan suffered a fractured arm and filed a suit for negligence against the mall management. The management argued that the rain was a natural event beyond their control and that visitors should walk carefully during rainy weather.

What is the correct legal position?

A. The mall management is liable because it failed to take reasonable safety measures for visitors.
B. Rohan alone is liable because he should have avoided the wet area.
C. The mall is not liable because rain is a natural event.
D. Liability will arise only if another customer had previously complained.

Question 2

Dr. Meera performed surgery on Anita without checking her allergy history despite hospital records clearly mentioning severe allergy to a specific medicine used during the procedure. Anita suffered serious complications after surgery. Dr. Meera claimed that the complication was unexpected and part of ordinary medical risk. Anita filed a negligence claim alleging lack of reasonable care during treatment.

Which option best describes the situation?

A. Dr. Meera is not liable because all surgeries involve risk.
B. Dr. Meera is liable because she failed to exercise reasonable professional care.
C. The hospital alone is liable, not the doctor.
D. Anita cannot sue because she consented to surgery.

Question 3

Vikram was driving his car at high speed through a crowded market despite traffic restrictions. He ignored repeated warnings from pedestrians and eventually hit Aarav, who was crossing the road carefully at a zebra crossing. Aarav sustained severe injuries and sued Vikram for negligence. Vikram argued that Aarav should have been more alert while crossing the road.

What is the most appropriate legal conclusion?

A. Aarav is fully responsible because pedestrians must always be alert.
B. Both parties are equally liable automatically in road accidents.
C. Vikram is liable because he breached his duty to drive carefully in a crowded area.
D. Vikram is not liable because accidents are unavoidable in busy markets.

Question 4

Sneha hired BrightSpark Electrical Services to repair wiring in her apartment. The electrician left exposed live wires uncovered after completing part of the work and informed nobody about the danger. Later that evening, Sneha’s younger brother touched the wire and suffered an electric shock. BrightSpark argued that the work was still incomplete and therefore they should not be held responsible.

Which statement is legally correct?

A. Sneha is liable because the apartment belongs to her.
B. Nobody is liable because the work was incomplete.
C. The younger brother is responsible for touching the wire.
D. BrightSpark is liable for failing to ensure reasonable safety during repair work.

Question 5

A school bus driver named Mahesh was using his mobile phone while driving students home from school. Due to his distraction, the bus suddenly braked and student Riya fell from her seat, suffering injuries. The school argued that the injury was minor and accidental. Riya’s parents filed a negligence claim against both the driver and the school administration.

What is the correct legal position?

A. The driver and school may both be liable because reasonable care toward students was not maintained.
B. Riya alone is liable because students must hold their seats properly.
C. The school cannot be liable for acts of its driver.
D. No negligence exists because the injury was minor.

Answers with Explanations

1. Answer: A

The mall management owed a duty of care toward visitors. Failure to place warning signs or clean accumulated water amounts to breach of duty. A reasonable property owner would have taken preventive safety measures during rainy conditions.

2. Answer: B

Doctors are expected to exercise reasonable professional skill and care. Ignoring a patient’s known allergy history is a clear breach of medical duty, making Dr. Meera liable for negligence.

3. Answer: C

Vikram drove recklessly in a crowded area and ignored traffic safety obligations. Since Aarav crossed carefully at a zebra crossing, Vikram breached his duty of care and is liable for negligence.

4. Answer: D

Professionals performing electrical repairs must ensure safety during ongoing work. Leaving exposed live wires unattended created foreseeable risk of harm, making BrightSpark liable for negligence.

5. Answer: A

The driver failed to drive responsibly while transporting students. Schools also owe a duty to ensure safe transportation for children. Therefore, both the driver and the school may be held liable.