23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1
LEGAL

P1

P1
C

C
TORTS
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
C

C
1. PRINCIPLE: Whoever by words publishes any imputation concerning any person is said to defame
that person.
FACTS: During a marriage ceremony, A circulated a pamphlet saying sister of the bride ‘S’ is a thief,
she has stolen the shoes of the bridegroom. [CLAT 2019]
(a) A defamed S.
(b) A did not defame S.
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
(c) A defamed the bridegroom.
41

41

41
(d) A defamed the bride.
P1

P1

P1
C

C
2. PRINCIPLE: An employer is liable for an injury caused to an employee in the course of the
employment.
FACTS: ‘A’ and ‘B’ were working in a factory as unskilled laborers. A was carrying a basket of stones
on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from
the basket and hit B on his head. B died instantaneously. [CLAT 2019]
(a) The employer will be liable.
5

5
23

23

23
(b) The employer will not be liable.
05

05

05
41

41

41
(c) A will be liable.
P1

P1

P1
(d) Both employer and A will be liable.
C

C
3.
I. Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts of their employees that are
committed during the course of employment.
II. A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall
do his work. The question of whether a person is an employee depends upon the degree of
5

5
23

23

23
control which the 'employer' exercises over the worker.
05

05

05

FACTS: Raja is a travel agent and possessed certain houses, which had an internal communication
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

throughout, and which were used for the purposes of his business. Ramesh looked after the houses,
C

and lived in them for this purpose, but he was also a clerk in Raja's pay at a set annual salary. He
lived in the houses with his wife, a child, and a servant. The case concerned the payment of inhabited
house duty. There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a "servant" or
person occupying the premises "for the protection thereof". Raja was claiming the exemption from
tax liability by claiming that Ramesh was the servant. Decide whether Ramesh was a servant or an
independent contractor? [AILET 2019]
(a) Ramesh is not a servant as the premises was held purely for trade purposes, and as Ramesh's
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05

position was simply that of a caretaker.

41

41

41

(b) Ramesh earned a salary per annum in his separate role as a clerk and merely enjoyed residence
P1

P1

P1
C

of the building with his family members. Thus, is an employee of the building owner for tax
purposes.

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 1
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
(c) Ramesh is a servant as servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the
manner in which he shall do his work.
(d) Ramesh is a servant as Raja can control his work of caretaker of the building as well as his job
of clerk.

5
23

23

23
4. PRINCIPLES:

05

05

05
41

41

41
I. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of

P1

P1

P1
land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
C

C
II. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything
likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima
facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
III. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary interest,
convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
5

5
FACTS: Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr.
23

23

23
05

05

05
Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above the Dr.
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
Hemant's clinic. Karan was found liable for emitting from their clinic obnoxious fumes which escaped
C

C
downwards into Hemant's clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered
substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and
breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?
[AILET 2019]
(a) Karan is not liable as the work is a public welfare requires, a nuisance may be permitted for
special purposes.
(b) Hemant cannot claim damages as he is voluntarily operating his clinic since a decade.
5

5
23

23

23
(c) Karan is not liable as he is running the clinic for 18 years and Hemant has not raised any issues
05

05

05
41

41

41
earlier.
P1

P1

P1
C

C
(d) Karan is liable for the damages caused to Hemant and his staff and patients.

5. PRINCIPLE: The Latin maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se means that he who acts through
another, acts himself.
FACTS: Heema requests her minor sister Harika to purchase a bag for her from the local shop.
Harika purchases the bag on credit telling the shop keeper that her sister will pay for it. Afterwards,
Heema refuses to pay for the bag.
5

5
23

23

23
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated
05

05

05
41

41

41
above? [CLAT 2018]
P1

P1

P1
(a) Since Heema has not purchased the bag herself, she is not liable to pay for it.
C

C
(b) Harika being a minor, the shop keeper should not have sold the bag to her.
(c) Since she purchased the bag through her sister, Heema is liable to pay for it.
(d) Harika being a minor should not have been entrusted by Heema for the purchase of the bag.

6. PRINCIPLE: Negligence is the absence of care by one party which results in some damage to
another. Damage is an essential ingredient to constitute a tort of negligence.
5

FACTS: Mistry left his ladder on the public road while unloading it from a truck when he went to open 5
23

23

23
05

05

05

the shutters of his shop. Saini who was riding his motorcycle had to swerve hard to avoid hitting the
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

ladder as he came with speed on the road. Saini fell down but was miraculously not injured. Which
C

of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
[CLAT 2018]
(a) Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was not injured though he fell down.
(b) Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder.
(c) Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was speeding on the road.
(d) Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since he was careless in leaving the ladder on the road.
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
C

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 2
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
7. PRINCIPLE: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement
of his legal right.

FACTS: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years
by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s

5
23

23

23
tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge

05

05

05
41

41

41
losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh? Which of the following statements is the

P1

P1

P1
most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above? [CLAT 2018]
C

C
(a) Ashutosh must compensate Gulshan for his loss consequent to the start of the new tuition centre.
(b) Gulshan cannot blame Ashutosh if he cannot retain his students.
(c) Ashutosh has not violated any legal right of Gulshan, though students shifted to Ashutosh’s
Centre and though Gulshan suffered loss, after he shut down his tuition Centre.
(d) Gulshan should have improved his quality with lower fees to retain his students in the light of
competition brought in by Ashutosh.
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
8. PRINCIPLE: Nuisance is the unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of his land or some
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
rights over or in connection with it.
C

C
FACTS: Ashok, in his nineties, is hard of hearing and plays the radio very loudly throughout the day
and on a daily basis. Raju, his neighbour, complains that he cannot listen to his favourite TV show
in his home due to the radio of Ashok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated
above? [CLAT 2018]
(a) Listening to the radio is Ashok’s freedom.
(b) Ashok is creating nuisance to his neighbour by playing the radio loud perpetually and disturbing
5

5
23

23

23
Raju in being able to listen to the TV in his home.
05

05

05
41

41

41
(c) Raju is creating nuisance by complaining about Ashok’s enjoyment of hearing his radio.
P1

P1

P1
C

C
(d) Raju should appreciate that Ashok is aged and hard of hearing.

9. PRINCIPLE: A person is liable to compensate others for harm caused by the escape of any inherently
dangerous material that he keeps on his land.
FACTS: Ankit lights a bonfire in his courtyard to warm himself up during a cold winter evening. A
strong wind suddenly blows some sparks from the fire, on to his neighbour’s house which catches
fire and gets completely destroyed. Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in
5

5
23

23

23
relation to the legal principle stated above? [CLAT 2018]
05

05

05
41

41

41
(a) Ankit’s neighbour is liable to Ankit for distress caused by keeping a house that catches fire so
P1

P1

P1
quickly.
C

C
(b) Ankit is not liable because nobody could foresee that the sudden wind will blow the sparks to
cause a fire.
(c) Ankit’s neighbour cannot make Ankit liable for the loss of his house since it was an accidental
fire that destroyed it.
(d) Ankit is liable to compensate because the fire escaped from his premises to burn down his
neighbour’s house.
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05

10. PRINCIPLE: A person, who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damage.

C

FACTS: A, an industrialist stored 1000 litres of liquid ammonia in a tank in his premises for his
industrial use. There was a leakage from the tank due to which there was ammonia vapour in the
surroundings. Many workers in other industries as well as his own industry and some members from
the public suffered serious health hazards. Examine the liability of A, if any.
[CLAT 2018]
(a) A may be liable for the injury sustained by his workers only and not others.
5

5
23

23

23

(b) A is liable as he is responsible for the injury caused by the leakage of ammonia from his premises.
05

05

05
41

41

41

(c) A is not liable because there was no fault on his part for the escape of the dangerous substance.
P1

P1

P1
C

(d) A is not liable because he did not expect a leakage from the tank.

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 3
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
11. PRINCIPLES:
I. An assault is an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of
immediate, unlawful force on a person.
II. A battery consists of an intentional application of force to another person without any lawful
justification.

5
23

23

23
FACTS: Jagan was in his car when he was approached by a police officer who told him to move the

05

05

05
41

41

41
vehicle. Jagan did so, reversed his car and rolled it on to the foot of the police officer. The officer

P1

P1

P1
forcefully told him to move the car off his foot at which point Jagan swore at him and refused to move
C

C
his vehicle and turned the engine off. Jagan was convicted for assaulting a police officer in the
execution of his duty. Is he liable for battery or assault? [AILET 2018]
(a) He is not liable because there cannot be an assault in omitting to act and that driving on to the
officer’s foot was accidental, meaning that he was lacking mens rea when the act causing
damage had occurred.
(b) He is not liable as the act neither amounts to an attempt nor a threat to commit a battery that
5

5
amounts to an actionable tort of assault.
23

23

23
05

05

05
(c) Jagan’s crime was not the refusal to move the car but that of having driven on to the foot of the
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
officer and decided not to cease the act, he had established a continual act of battery.
C

C
(d) He is neither liable for assault nor battery as he accidently drove his car on the police officer’s
foot.

12. PRINCIPLE: When a person makes such a statement which lowers other person's reputation in the
estimation of other persons, is liable for committing defamation.
FACTS: 'A' writes a letter to 'B' in which he uses abusive language against 'B', and also states that
'B' is a dishonest person. 'A' put the letter in a sealed envelope and delivered it to 'B'. [CLAT
5

5
23

23

23
2017]
05

05

05
41

41

41
(a) 'A' has committed defamation. (c) 'A' has not committed moral wrong.
P1

P1

P1
C

C
(b) 'A' has committed a moral wrong. (d) 'A' has not committed defamation.

13. PRINCIPLE: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the
permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.
FACTS: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed
a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land. [CLAT 2017]
(a) 'T' has violated privacy of 'P'.
5

5
23

23

23
(b) 'T' has not committed any trespass on the land of 'P'.
05

05

05
41

41

41
(c) 'T' has committed trespass to land.
P1

P1

P1
(d) 'T' has created nuisance for 'P'.
C

C
14.
I. A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others.
II. Volenti non fit injura is defence to negligence.

FACTS: K was a friend of L and was teaching her to drive. Prior to such an arrangement K had
5

sought assurances from L that appropriate insurance had been purchased in the event of accident. 5
23

23

23
05

05

05

On the third day, L was executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed when she panicked which
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

resulted in the car crashing into a lamp-post injuring K. L was subsequently convicted for driving
C

without due care and attention. L denied liability to pay compensation to K on the ground of volenti
non fit injuria and also that she was just learning to drive and was not in complete control of the
vehicle. Decide.
[AILET 2017]
(a) L is liable as the defence of volenti non fit injuria was not applicable. Secondly, that the duty of
care owed by a learner driver to the public (including passengers) was to be measured against
the same standard that would be applied to any other driver.
5

5
23

23

23

(b) L is not liable as K voluntarily accompanied her.

05

05

05
41

41

41

(c) L is not liable as she is just learning to drive and duty of care rests upon the instructor.
P1

P1

P1
C

(d) L is not liable as a learner driver does not owe a duty of care towards public in general and
towards the passenger in specific.

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 4
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
15. PRINCIPLE: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.
FACTS: Devi who was the owner of a big home with a compound wall, constructed an underground
tank to store water. This was covered by jute bags since the work was incomplete. The postman who
came inside to deliver a registered letter, fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was also a box on

5
23

23

23
the outside of the compound wall, where all the mail could be deposited. The injured man filed a suit

05

05

05
41

41

41
against Devi claiming compensation. [AILET 2008]

P1

P1

P1
(a) Devi is not liable, because she did not invite the postman to her house.
C

C
(b) Devi is not liable, because the postman could have delivered the letter in the box on the outside
of the compound wall.
(c) Devi is not liable because the postman was required to take care of himself.
(d) Devi is liable because the postman came into the premises in the course of his duty.

16. PRINCIPLE: An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of wilful act intended
5

5
to cause him harm or done with reckless disregard.
23

23

23
05

05

05
FACTS: Tony, a richman, had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
servants not to go near the dog. Further a special attender was hired to take care of the dog. Visitors
C

C
were warned by a prominent warning sign board about this dog. One day, a 13 year old boy playing
in the neighbourhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and killed him.
Tony was sued for damages. [AILET 2008]
(a) Tony was not liable because the boy was a trespasser.
(b) Tony is not liable because a 13 year old boy ought to have known about the presence of the
ferocious dog.
(c) Tony is liable of the negligence of his servant to keep watch on such a ferocious dog during the
5

5
23

23

23
day time.
05

05

05
41

41

41
(d) Both (a) and (b).
P1

P1

P1
C

C
17. PRINCIPLES:
I. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is
deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.
II. Nobody shall enrich himself at other's expense.
FACTS: A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached a teaching hospital.
He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright.
5

5
23

23

23
The hospital, however, found some unique cells in the appendix and using the cell lines thereof, it
05

05

05
41

41

41
developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it,
P1

P1

P1
he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital. [CLAT 2008]
C

C
POSSIBLE DECISIONS:
A. The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
B. The hospital may share its profits on ex gratia basis.
C. The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.
POSSIBLE REASONS:
I. The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
5

II. The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own 5
23

23

23
05

05

05

and the development of drug was the result of its own effort.
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

III. The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
C

IV. Everybody must care for and share with others.

Your decision with the reason;
(a) (A)(I) (b) (A)(II) (c) (C)(III) (d) (D)(IV)

18. PRINCIPLES:
I. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
II. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man
5

5
23

23

23

while carrying on his activities.

05

05

05
41

41

41

FACTS: A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into
P1

P1

P1
C

the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 5
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit
against the organizers.
[CLAT 2008]
POSSIBLE DECISIONS:
A. The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.

5
23

23

23
B. The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.

05

05

05
41

41

41
C. The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

P1

P1

P1
POSSIBLE REASONS:
C

C
I. The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
II. The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
III. A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
IV. The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason;
(a) (A)(IV) (b) (A)(III) (c) (B)(II) (d) (C)(I)
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
19.
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
I. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of
C

C
employment.
II. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the
course of employment.

FACTS: Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customers
spread over in different places on daily basis. Nagamma, a housemaid, was one of such customers
making use of Nandan's service. Syndicate Bank, after a couple of years, terminated Nandan's
5

5
23

23

23
service. Nagamma, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who
05

05

05
41

41

41
misappropriated them. Nagamma realised this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank
P1

P1

P1
C

C
to withdraw money. She filed a complaint against the Bank. [CLAT 2008]
POSSIBLE DECISIONS:
A. Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.
B. Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.
C. Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.
POSSIBLE REASONS:
I. Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after the termination of his service.
5

5
23

23

23
II. A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
05

05

05
41

41

41
III. Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
P1

P1

P1
IV. The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position.
C

C
Your decision with the reason;
(a) (B)(I) (b) (C)(II) (c) (A)(III) (d) (B)(IV)

20. PRINCIPLE: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.
FACTS: Laloo was running a dairy from his house. People used a part of his farm as a short cut to
get to a nearby railway station. Laloo, who did not approve of this, put up a notice that 'Trespassers
5

will be prosecuted'. However, since a number of these people were also his customers, he tolerated 5
23

23

23
05

05

05

them. One day, a person who was using this short cut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm.
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

The injured person filed a suit against him. [AILET 2009]

C

(a) Laloo is liable for having kept a bull on his farm.

(b) Laloo is not liable in view of the clear notice against trespassers.
(c) Laloo is liable because in fact he allowed the people to use his premises.
(d) Laloo is not liable to the people other than his customers.

21. PRINCIPLE: False imprisonment is a total restraint of the liberty of a person, for however short a
time, without lawful excuse.
5

5
23

23

23

FACTS: A was driving down a road heading to her house. As she reached close to her house, she
05

05

05
41

41

41

found that a few people led by B, protesting against an unfair law had blocked the road. There was
P1

P1

P1
C

no alternate road to her house and hence she was stuck there for around 5 minutes. [AILET 2010]
(a) B and his group are liable for having falsely imprisoned A.

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 6
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
(b) B and his group are not liable for falsely imprisoning A, since they were exercising their right to
protest.
(c) B and his group are not liable for falsely imprisoning A, since they did not totally restrain the
liberty of A.
(d) B and his group are not liable for falsely imprisoning A, since 5 minutes is too short a time.

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
22. PRINCIPLE: Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existence of liability in tort (civil

P1

P1

P1
wrong).
C

C
FACTS: X purchased a bottle of ginger- beer from a retailer. As she consumed more than 3/4 of the
contents of the bottle, she found decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. After seeing the
remains of a snail, she fell sick on the thought of what she consumed. She sued the manufacturer of
the beer for negligence, though there is no contractual duty on the part of the manufacturer. [AILET
2011]
(a) X cannot sue the manufacturer for negligence in the absence of a contract.
5

5
(b) X cannot sue the retailer.
23

23

23
05

05

05
(c) X can sue the manufacturer as he had a duty to take care to see that bottles did not contain any
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
other substance than the beer and hence liable to have broken that duty.
C

C
(d) None of the above.

23. PRINCIPLE: A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.
FACTS: Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits in his farm and he has fenced the farm to
prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding
urchins and cattles. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the
farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. But when there was
5

5
23

23

23
no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously
05

05

05
41

41

41
waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.
P1

P1

P1
C

C
[AILET 2011]
(a) Ramlal is not liable, since the fence and the dog are lawful means of protecting the property.
(b) Ramlal is not liable for the boy trespassing and getting badly injured in that process.
(c) Ramlal is liable, since an ordinary barking dog would have sufficed for the purpose.
(d) None of the above

24. PRINCIPLE: Injuria Sine Damnum.

5

5
23

23

23
FACTS: Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction
05

05

05
41

41

41
(stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named "Jai Santoshi Maa". Her contention
P1

P1

P1
is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati
C

C
were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed.
[CLAT 2012]
(a) She cannot file a suit because injury to religious feelings is not a legally recognized right.
(b) She cannot file a suit because the Theatre has a fundamental right to speech and expression.
(c) She can file a suit as injury to religious feelings has been legally recognized as a right (injuria
sine damnum).
5

(d) It is a case of complete judicial discretion. 5

23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

25. PRINCIPLE: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both
C

knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e., readiness to bear harm.

FACTS: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel, was
little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.
[CLAT 2016]
(a) Driver can take the plea that he was lightly intoxicated.
(b) Lady is not entitled to claim compensation as she had knowledge of the risk.
5

5
23

23

23

(c) Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about risk and there was no assumption
05

05

05
41

41

41

of risk.
P1

P1

P1
C

(d) Lady can refuse to pay the fare as she had suffered injuries.

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 7
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
26. PRINCIPLE: Necessity knows no law, and any person facing danger may do all that is necessary to
avert the same till he can take recourse to public authorities.
FACTS: Akshay, a law abiding citizen, decided to remove the weed of corruption from Indian society.
One day, confronted with a bribing official, Akshay decided to teach him a lesson and punched him
in his face. Akshay; [AILET 2015]

5
23

23

23
(a) Can plead defence of necessity as he was being bribed which is a crime.

05

05

05
41

41

41
(b) Cannot plead defence of necessity as there was no necessity to act in the manner he acted.

P1

P1

P1
(c) Can plead defence of necessity as aware and vigilant citizenry forms the basis of a good
C

C
democracy.
(d) Can plead defense of necessity as there was no time to take recourse to public authorities.

27. PRINCIPLE: Ignorance of law excuses no one.

FACTS: ‘X’ fails to file his income tax returns for a considerable number of years. The income Tax
department serves upon him a ‘show-cause notice’ as to why proceedings should not be initiated
5

5
against him for the recovery of the income tax due from him with interest and penalty.
23

23

23
05

05

05
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT? [CLAT 2014]
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
(a) ‘X’ may defend himself by taking the plea that his legal advisor had not advised him to file the
C

C
return.
(b) ‘X’ would have to pay the due, as ignorance of law and failure to comply with law is no legal
ground of defence.
(c) ‘X’ may defend himself successfully by taking the plea that he was unaware of any such law
being in force.
(d) None of the above.
5

5
23

23

23
28. PRINCIPLE: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standards of care
05

05

05
41

41

41
required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take
P1

P1

P1
C

C
civil action against the respondent, if the respondent’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
5

5
23

23

23
the manufacturer of the drink for negligence.
05

05

05
41

41

41
Applying the afore-stated principle, which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards liability
P1

P1

P1
of the manufacturer in the given situation? [CLAT 2014]
C

C
(a) The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed a duty (to consumer) 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 manufactures to do business.
5

(d) The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence. 5
23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

29. PRINCIPLE: Every partner is liable, jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts
C

of the firm done while he is a partner.

FACTS: A and B started a partnership firm for providing vehicle repairing services. C approached
the firm for getting his car repaired and noticed that only B was present in the office. C informed the
problem, and B started repairing the car. While B was repairing, he filled petrol instead of oil in the
engine. As a consequence, a small blast occurred and damaged the car. Now, C sued both A and B
for the damage so caused. [AILET 2014]
(a) Both liable since B was authorised to carry out the work of the firm.
5

5
23

23

23

(b) A is not liable since A has not authorised B to do something which was not for the benefit of the
05

05

05
41

41

41

firm.
P1

P1

P1
C

(c) A is not liable since it was B’s fault and for that only B can be held liable.
(d) A is liable since it was negligence on his part that he was not present in the office when C came.

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 8
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
30. PRINCIPLE: No fault liability means liability of a person even without any negligent act on his part
and even if he has taken due care and caution. If a person brings and keeps any dangerous thing
on his land, then he is liable for any damage caused if the thing escapes. No one can be penalized
for an Act of God which is unforeseeable and unpredictable.

5
23

23

23
FACTS: B owned and managed a company supplying electricity to the nearby locality. On a particular

05

05

05
41

41

41
windy and stormy day, one of the loose wires snapped and was hanging down. A, a cyclist who was

P1

P1

P1
driving in the night, saw the wire from a distance. There was a nearby street light with low visibility.
C

C
He came in contact with the wire and was electrocuted immediately. His heirs sued B on ground of
strict liability. Decide.
[AILET 2014]
(a) B is not liable because A must have stayed indoor on a windy day.
(b) B is not liable because A’s negligence caused him injury.
(c) B is liable because supplying electricity is an inherently dangerous use of land and he should
5

5
have been careful.
23

23

23
05

05

05
(d) B is not liable because sudden storm and winds without B’s negligence was an Act of God.
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
C

C
31. PRINCIPLES:
I. Joint tort-feasers means joint wrongdoers. People can be joint tort-feasors in case of common
action, in fact or in law.
II. Joint tort-feasers are jointly and severally liable.
FACTS: Two dogs belonging to two different owners acting in concert attacked a flock of sheep and
injured several sheeps. In an action for damages brought against the owners of the dogs, if one of
them puts a defence claiming that he was liable for one half only of the damage, then which one of
5

5
23

23

23
the following statements is legally sustainable in the above case? [AILET 2013]
05

05

05
41

41

41
(a) Neither of the owners is liable for damages done by his dog.
P1

P1

P1
C

C
(b) Each owner was responsible for one half of the damage.
(c) The owners themselves are not joint tort-feasers.
(d) None of the above.

32. PRINCIPLES: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:
I. That he was prosecuted by the defendant.
II. That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff.
5

5
23

23

23
III. That the prosecution was instituted against him without any just or reasonable cause.
05

05

05
41

41

41
IV. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention
P1

P1

P1
of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.
C

C
V. That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to security of his property.
FACTS: A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co. for personal injuries. Subsequently,
Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co.
prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for
malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true? [AILET
2013]
5

(a) Railway Co. is guilty of malicious prosecution because it acted without reasonable cause. 5
23

23

23
05

05

05

(b) Railway Co. is not guilty of malicious prosecution because the Co. took reasonable care in
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

determining the facts and honestly believed them to be true.

C

(c) Railway Co. is liable because it acted negligently.

(d) None of the above.

33. PRINCIPLE: Nobody shall make use of his property in such a way as to cause damage to others.
Any such use constitutes private nuisance, a wrongful act under Law of Torts.
FACTS: Vasan was owning a house, adjacent to a cluster of houses, owned by Varadan. Varadan
was leasing out these houses whereas Vasan was living in his house. When Vasan was transferred
5

5
23

23

23

to another place, he leased out his house to a person suffering from AIDS. Fearing the spread of
05

05

05
41

41

41

AIDS, the tenants moved out of Varadan's houses. Varadan requested Vasan to evict AIDS patient
P1

P1

P1
C

and he offered to fix a suitable tenant for Vasan's house, if the AIDS patient is evicted. But Vasan

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 9
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
refused by arguing that AIDS would not spread as feared by Varadan's tenants. Varadan filed a suit
against Vasan.
[AILET 2011]
(a) Varadan will win, because Vasan knowingly caused him financial damage.
(b) Varadan will not win, because Vasan could lease his house to whomever he wanted.

5
23

23

23
(c) Varadan will not win, because Vasan should not be held responsible for public misperception.

05

05

05
41

41

41
(d) None of the above

P1

P1

P1
C

C
34. Principle: Something done to prevent a greater harm can be used as a defence.
Mr. A was the captain of Olympus, which was carrying fifty people across the Atlantic. The ship was
caught amidst a storm and was about to sink. Mr. A pushed out two passengers with their luggage,
so that the ship could maintain balance. He made sure that they had their life-jackets with them.
Despite that, they succumbed to their injuries and died. The rest of the passengers, however, got
through unscathed.
5

5
(a) Mr.A is liable for culpable homicide (c) Mr.A is not liable
23

23

23
05

05

05
(b) Mr.A is liable for murder (d) Mr.A is guilty of negligence
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
C

C
35. PRINCIPLE: One has to compensate another for the injury caused due to his wrongful act. The
liability to compensate is reduced to the extent the latter has contributed to the injury through his own
negligence. This is the underlying principle of contributory negligence.
FACTS: Veerappa owns a farm at a distance of half a furlong from the railway track. He stored in his
land the stacks of dried up straw after the cultivation as is normal in farming. One day when the train
was passing through the track, the driver was negligently operating the locomotive by allowing it to
emit large quantities of spark. The high wind, normal in open fields, carried the sparks to the stacks
5

5
23

23

23
stored by Veerappa and the stacks caught fire thereby causing extensive damage. Veerappa filed a
05

05

05
41

41

41
suit against the Railways claiming damages. The Railways while acknowledging liability alleged
P1

P1

P1
C

C
contributory negligence on the part of Veerappa.
(a) Veerappa was not liable since his use of land was lawful.
(b) Veerappa's farm being at a reasonable distance from the railway track, he cannot be held
responsible for the high winds.
(c) Veerappa should have anticipated the possibility and hence he is liable for contributory
negligence.
(d) None of the above.
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
36. PRINCIPLES:
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
I. The owner of a land has absolute interest on the property including the contents over and under
C

C
the property.
II. Water flowing below your land is not yours though you can use it.
III. Any construction on your land belongs to you.
IV. All mineral resources below the land belong to the State.
FACTS: There is a subterranean water flow under Suresh's land surface. Suresh constructed a huge
reservoir and drew all subterranean water to the reservoir. As a result, the wells of all adjacent
property owners have gone dry. They demanded that either Suresh must demolish the reservoir or
5

5
23

23

23
share the reservoir water with them.
05

05

05
41

41

41

[CLAT 2008]
P1

P1

P1
C

PROPOSED DECISIONS:
A. Suresh need not demolish the reservoir.
B. Suresh has to demolish the reservoir.
C. Suresh has to share the water with his neighbours.
D. The Government can take over the reservoir.
POSSIBLE REASONS:
I. Water cannot be captured by one person for his personal use.
5

5
23

23

23

II. The Government must ensure equitable distribution of water.

05

05

05
41

41

41

III. Whatever is under Suresh's land may be used by him.

P1

P1

P1

IV. Suresh has to respect the rights of others regarding water.

C

Your decision with the reason;

(a) (A)(III) (b) (B)(I) (c) (C)(IV) (d) (D)(II)
(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 10
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
TORTS

C
37. PRINCIPLE: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not
give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.

FACTS: Prakash has a rice mill. His neighbour, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough

5
23

23

23
competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down. He brings a suit against

05

05

05
41

41

41
Shanti for damages. [CLAT 2016]

P1

P1

P1
(a) Prakash can succeed in his claim as it is a case of actual damages.
C

C
(b) Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement
of any legal right.
(c) Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.
(d) Prakash can succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage as a result of
infringement of his legal right.
5

5
38. PRINCIPLE: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are
23

23

23
05

05

05
committed during the course of employment, however, the master is not liable if the wrongful act
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant’s contract of employment.
C

C
FACTS: ‘D’ is a driver employed by ‘M’, who is the owner of a company. During the lunch time, ‘D’
goes to a close by tea shop to have a cup of tea. There, he (‘D’) picks up fight with the tea shop
owner (‘T’), which resulted in some damage to his shop. ‘T’ wants to sue ‘M’ for claiming
compensation for the damage caused by the fight.
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT? [CLAT 2014]
(a) ‘M’ will be liable because ‘D’ is his servant.
(b) Both ‘M’ and ‘D’ will be liable.
5

5
23

23

23
(c) ‘M’ will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course
05

05

05
41

41

41
of ‘D’s employment.
P1

P1

P1
C

C
(d) ‘M’ will be liable about the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of ‘D’s
employment.

39. PRINCIPLE: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable
for the negligence of his employee if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
FACTS: A and B were working in a factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones
on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from
5

5
23

23

23
the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.
05

05

05
41

41

41
[CLAT 2013]
P1

P1

P1
(a) The owner of the factory will be liable.
C

C
(b) A and the owner of the factory shall be jointly liable.
(c) The owner of the factory will not be liable.
(d) None of the above.

40. Inevitable Accident is a general defense against tortuous liability.

Explanation: - When an injury is caused to a person by an event that could not be foreseen and
5

avoided despite reasonable care on the part of the defendant, the defense of inevitable accident can 5
23

23

23
05

05

05

be used.
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
C

Facts: - Dogs of A and B were fighting. P was beating them in order to separate them and Q was
looking on. P accidentally hit the Q in the eye causing him a severe injury. Q brought an action
against P for causing injury to his eye. Decide?

(a) P is liable as he was negligent while separating the dogs.

(b) P is liable as the accident could have easily foreseen by the person of a reasonable standard,
therefore defense of inevitable accident is not applicable.
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05

(c) P is liable as he should not have tried to separate them, and if he went there to separate them
41

41

41

he was expected to be highly careful in his conduct.

P1

P1

P1
C

(d) None of the above.

(H.O.): 2nd & 3rd Floor, Patani Chambers, SBI Bank Building, Laxmi Mandir Tiraha, Tonk Road, Jaipur
Call: 9549547770, 9950266622, 0141-4082038 Page 11
 23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
C

C
ClatPrep students have done it AGA IN!!!
CLAT AILET CLAT AILET CLAT
ALL INDIA ALL INDIA ALL INDIA ALL INDIA ALL INDIA
RANK

5
RANK RANK RANK RANK

23

23

23
(GIRLS)

05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
C

C
sc

NAVYA T SIMAR SAHIL KRRISH PIYUSH

(CP14105871) (CP14104121) AIOM (CP14106507) (CP12400703) (CP14105223)
5

5
CLASSROOM STUDENT CLASSROOM STUDENT CLASSROOM STUDENT CLASSROOM STUDENT
23

23

23
05

05

05
AIR-6
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
C

C
vrqY;
5

5
23

23

23
lysD'kUl fjtYV~l VkWilZ
05

05

05
41

41

41
lokZf/kd lokZf/kd lokZf/kd
P1

P1

P1
C

C
18 NRI

(CLAT)
20
(CLAT)
22
(AILET)
23 (CLAT)
23
(AILET)
24
(CLAT)
36
(AILET)
38
(AILET)
40
(CLAT)
52
(AILET)
62
(CLAT)
SC

DAKSH ARORA RATYANSH KISNA SANATH MANASWINI TANISHQ SUD VRISH NAVYA NAIR ARUNAV GHOSH VIBHAKAR ADITYA SINGH
(CP12400534) AIOM (CP14106741) (CP14106019) (CP14105453) (CP14106203) (CP14104498) (CP14106126) (CP14105871) (CP14105566) (CP14106078) (CP12400679)

63 64 65 71 71 72 82 102 107 109 110

5

5
(AILET) (AILET) (AILET) (CLAT) (AILET) (CLAT) (CLAT) (CLAT) (CLAT) (CLAT) (CLAT)
23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1
AADITI RAGHAV SHRISHTI GAUR AADITI T SIMAR KISNA KRRISH KAPOOR SANSKAR SINGHAL UDAY SURAVARAM IAN SALUJA SHRISHTI GAUR
C

C
(CP14105334) (CP14105141) (CP14104532) (CP14105334) (CP14104121) (CP14106019) (CP12400703) (CP14106263) (CP14106310) (CP14105535) (CP14104532)

121
(CLAT)
123
(CLAT)
130 NRI

(CLAT)
132
(CLAT)
151
(CLAT)
156
(CLAT)
180
(CLAT)
183
(CLAT)
188
(CLAT)
196 (CLAT)
197
(CLAT)

SHASHIN LADHA DEVIKA VEERKAR SARAH SHARMA AAKASH DWIVEDI VAISHNAVI SRIVASTAVA VATSAL GOLYAN VAISHNAVI SINHA HAMZAH MOHMEDHARIS PATEL OMKAAR PATTANAYAK ISHITA SEN NANDAN POLPAKARA
(CP14106339) (CP14106400) (CP14105110) (CP141O6284) (CP14106319) (CP14104833) (CP14106174)
(CP14106339) (CP14105249)
(CP14106400) (CP1410677) (CP14106344) (CP14106340)

OUR STAR PERFORMERS

5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41

ClatPrep Jaipur has produced maximum top rankers consistently

P1

P1

P1
C

CLAT 2023 AILET 2023 CLAT2023 AILET 2023 CLAT 2022 CLAT 2022 CLAT 2021 CLAT 2021 CLAT 2020 CLAT 2020

INI I I
DIVYANSH SHREY
PWD
NAVYA T SIMAR NAVYA MANASW NANDIN PWD
KETAN
SC SC ST

RAJSTHAN N N N
ALL INDIAS) ALL INDIA RAJSTHAN ALL INDIA RAJASTHA RAJASTHA ALL INDIA ALL INDIA RAJASTHA
IRL RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK
RANK (G RANK RANK RANK

AILET 2020 SLAT 2020 LSAT 2020 CLAT 2019 CLAT 2018 AILET 2018 CLAT 2017 AILET 2017 AILET 2016 AILET 2016
5

5
23

23

23
05

05

05
41

41

41
P1

P1

P1

SHIKHAR
GEN
ADITYA GEN
YANA GEN
GAURESH
PWD
AMAN GEN
SHREYA ST MEGHA GEN
ARVIND GEN
SWASTIKA ST
DEVANSH
GEN
C

N N N
RAJASTHA
N
ALL INDIA RAJASTHA
N
ALL INDIA ALL INDIA RAJASTHA
N RAJASTHA RAJASTHA RAJASTHA
RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK ALL INDIA RANK RANK RANK RANK
RANK

Tonk Road Vaishali Nagar

(Jaipur): (Jaipur):
www.clatprepindia.com
Pitampura (Delhi): 8586039359 Gurugram (Haryana): 9667361999 Hissar (Haryana): 7015837505 Bhopal (M.P.): 8982874970