CLAT Legal-Aptitude: Questions 347 - 348 of 1066
Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 1066 questions. Access all new questions we will add tracking exam-pattern and syllabus changes. View Sample Explanation or View Features.
Rs. 450.00 or
Question number: 347
PRINCIPLE: The tort of negligence entails a standard of reasonableness. Negligence occurs when a person who is, by reasonable prudence, expected to do something, omits to do the same. In cases where a characteristic of the claimant is such that risk of harm is increased, the defendant has a duty to take extra precautions to protect the same.
FACTS: Rahul was employed under Ajit in a factory in a garage. He had previously received an injury at work which had left his left eye damaged as a result of which he could see only from one eye. He was involved in welding. Ajit had not provided goggles to Rahul for his work. One day, a piece of metal flew while Rahul was doing his work and damaged his good eye. He was rendered blind.
Q. Is Ajit liable?
Yes, Ajit is liable just because employers are required to take good care of the employees.
Ajit may or may not be liable. It depends on the work environment.
No, Ajit is not liable because as an employer, he expected Rahul to take care of himself.
Ajit stands liable as he was expected to provide goggles to Rahul.
Question number: 348
Appeared in Year: 2012
Principle: Willful rash driving is an offense.
Facts: Mr. Tiwari was driving his car after drinking alcohol. Police books him for willful negligent driving. Is the act of the police lawful?
No, because Mr. Tiwari was not driving rashly; he was drunk while driving.
Yes, because the police have the power to arrest a person driving rashly.
No, this is not a negligent act.
Yes, because Mr. Tiwari was driving rashly.