MCQ 4 Dec 2023

Daily Static MCQs for CLAT Prelims Exams - (4 December 2023)

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has held that enterprises or departments engaged in hazardous activities cannot claim immunity from granting compensation on the ground that accident occurred due to negligence of the injured or deceased individuals. The Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rahul Bharti observed, “The plea that the accident happened due to the negligence of the injured or deceased, as the case may be, is not available to such enterprise or department engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity”. While adjudicating a Letter Patent Appeal concerning an issue regarding entitlement to compensation of an individual who died due to electrocution in 2003, the Bench upheld the compensation awarded by the High Court but revised the amount allocated for loss of consortium. On 5th March 2003, Mr. Raghuvir Singh (Deceased) lost his life after coming into contact with a live and exposed electric transformer. The subsequent legal battle involved the deceased's family seeking compensation from the then State of Jammu & Kashmir (now UT of Jammu & Kashmir) and others, claiming negligence on the part of the concerned department responsible for maintaining the transformer. The Appellants, dissatisfied with the verdict, challenged it on multiple grounds. They contended that the High Court allowed the writ petition and granted compensation to the Respondents/Claimants without returning a specific finding as to the negligence of the Appellant-department. They argued that the incident of electrocution happened due to the negligence of the deceased who had strayed into the live electric transformer kept away from the road at a secured place. Moreover, the Appellants raised an issue concerning the computation of compensation. The Court held that the hazardous and inherently dangerous nature of the activity engaged in by the Department of Power Development, namely, electricity transmission, demands a higher level of care and caution. In such inherently dangerous activities, the enterprise or department involved is strictly liable for any harm caused due to an accident, irrespective of the negligence of the injured party. In the Enquiry Report, it was evident that the Appellant-department had not put up any signboard or marking in front of the transformer to caution the people to stay away. The transformer was not properly fenced and, therefore, posed a serious threat to the life of citizens living around it. While placing reliance on M.C. Mehta and others v. Union of India, 1987 (1) SCC, it was observed that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities bear absolute liability for accidents resulting from their operations and the Court absolves them from claiming contributory negligence on the part of the victim.

Question1:- Sonal trespasses into premises of a Factory. While entering into the property, sonal was injured due to shards of glass that were spread around during a manufacturing process. Decide whether the factory management be liable for the injury of Sonal or she herself?
  • A. Sonal will be liable for her own act of trespass which comes under the exception of the rules of strict liability
  • B. Factory management will be liable for their act, which can cause injury to any person
  • C. Sonal can sue factory management for her injury
  • D. Factory management will be partially liable for her injury.
Answer is A is correct. If the plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into the defendant’s property, then all his rights to complain about the damage so caused are nullified. The same thing happens in the above question that’s why option (A) is correct.
Question2:- Sam and John are neighbors; Sam has wild trees beside his house which falls into his property only. John has two horses, one of them goes into Sam property and eats leaves from one of the trees and dies. After this incident John sued Sam under strict liability. Decide whether Sam is liable or not?
  • A. Sam will not be liable under Strict liability
  • B. John will be liable under strict liability
  • C. Sam can sue John for having a horse
  • D. Sam cannot have wild trees on his property
Answer is A is correct. If we sue someone under Strict Liability then we need the completion of its basic principles which is Danger in this case which is trees, second is escaped and then Prima-facie liability but in this cases, trees of ‘X’ did not escape, which results that ‘X’ will not be liable for Strict liability because there is no completion of the basic principles of Absolute liability. Hence (a) is the correct answer.
Question3:- Nishant has built an artificial lake on his property and because of the heavy rainfall in the city lake was flooded and destroyed the property of his neighbour. After this incident, his neighbour sued him. Decide whether Nishant is liable or not.
  • A. Nishant will not be liable.
  • B. His neighbour cannot buy a house near him.
  • C. Nishant will be believable for the flood.
  • D. Nishant cannot have any artificial lake on his property
Answer is A is correct. In this question, Prashant will not be liable because of the Act of God which is an exception of strict liability; flood is an unpredictable act of nature that nobody can be liable for that’s why option (A) is correct.
Question4:- If X is engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous unsafe activity, and if any harm is caused due to an accident that occurred during carrying out such inherently dangerous and hazardous activity then the individual who is carrying out such activity will be held liable or not?
  • A. The person who is carrying out such activity will not be liable
  • B. The person who is carrying out such activity will be liable for his act
  • C. The person will be partially liable or partially not
  • D. If only a few people are harmed then the person will not be liable
Answer is B is correct. According to this question whenever an individual is engaged in a hazardous (unsafe) or inherently dangerous activity that can result in harm to anybody on account of the accident in operation, the individual would be held strictly and absolutely liable for his act to compensate to all those individuals who are affected by the accident. Hence option (B) is correct.
Question5 :- ABC is a company working at a Pesticide Factory in the city of Mumbai. One day, due to the carelessness of Factory staff, there is a leakage of the Pesticide gas because of which numerous irritations and bugs which feed on the ranch crops in the nearby ranch are killed. There is no mischief caused to individuals living close by or the specialists of the Pesticide Factory. Nonetheless, the spillage was humungous to the point that it decreased the nature of air in the city creating breathing issues for individuals living nearby. For this situation, decide the liability.
  • A. ABC will be liable but not strictly liable.
  • B. ABC will not be liable under the Strict and Absolute liability principles because the leakage only killed the pests and insects.
  • C. ABC's liability under the Strict and Absolute liability principles will depend upon the inquiry as to whether the leaked pesticide gas was a hazardous substance/activity or chemical or not and ABC will be liable under the Polluter Pays Principle.
  • D. ABC will not be liable under the Polluter Pays Principle.
Answer is C is correct. The strict liability principle explicitly mentions the need for an 'unsafe substance' or a 'risky action' in the premises of the undertaking, to expect them to take responsibility for compensation. The absolute liability additionally requires the presence of an 'unsafe substance' or a 'risky movement' in the premises. Hence option (C) is correct.