05 February 2024

Daily practice questions for CLAT - (05 February 2024)



Doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens is a type of defence, which is mostly practised in civil negligence cases. It is a Latin phrase which means there will be the appearance of a new act or event in the causal chain between the initial event, in a sequence and the result causing a break in the continuity of the same. Appearance of the intervening factor or the third party in the chain will give another result or worsens the appeared result. Hence, the independent and strong enough intervening act reduce or nullify the liability of the primary wrongdoer, thereby giving protection in the court of law When a patient is getting treatment from a physician and there is negligence on his part, while discharging his duties, he can be sued on the basis of gravity of outcome and extent of negligence. However, in the course of the event, i.e., from initial negligence to the final outcome, if a new intervening factor appears in the form of negligence of patient or other medical personnel or by natural factors which breaks the causal chain, it can be a good defence for the physician, as he is not directly liable for the harm, as was popularised by Hart and Honore.

Question1:- Bart who is an actor, was severely injured due to a fire while shooting for his latest movie. He was rushed to Dr. Morrie’s clinic for treatment. As most of Bart’s face was burned, Dr. Morrie suggested skin grafting procedure after cleaning out the infection and advised Bart to take all necessary precautions and get his bandages changed from him every day at 5 pm. Bart did not get his bandages changed one day and the next day, he was due for the skin grafting procedure. Since the infection increased as a result of Bart’s failure to show up at his appointment, the procedure had to be delayed. As a result, Bart lost one of his important contracts which needed filming immediately. Bart wishes to sue Dr. Morrie for recovery against the lost contract. Determine whether he can be held liable.
  • A. Dr. Morrie should feel morally obligated to compensate for Bart’s loss.
  • B. Dr. Morrie performed his duty diligently, whereas Bart did not, due to which his own act led to his own loss.
  • C. Bart is an actor of good standing in the society and therefore, must be compensated.
  • D. Dr. Morrie can be held liable for neglecting to timely treat Bart.
Answer is B is correct. Option A lacks any rational legal backing. Similarly, Option C does not lead to a logically sound course of action. The act of Bart in not showing up for his appointment acts as the novus actus interveniens leading to the delay in his surgery. Option D is logically incoherent as there was lack of duty to take care on the part of Bart. The loss of the filming contract was also an outcome of the negligence on Bart’s part, so Dr. Morrie cannot be held liable to compensate for the same. Therefore, the reasonably appropriate answer is option B.
Question2:- An auto-driver was booked by Shashwat to drop him to the railway station. Since Shashwat was late for his train, he advised the driver to rush and promised to pay him more than the average price for the route. As a result, the auto while jumping a red-light got nudged to the side by a truck crossing the road from the other side with moving traffic as the light turned green. The auto-driver escaped before it was too late while Shashwat sustained a few injuries. Shashwat sues the auto-driver for his injuries. Determine the liability.
  • A. Shashwat gave the instructions to the auto-driver and therefore, Shashwat is liable for his own injuries.
  • B. The auto-driver will be liable as Shashwat did not consent to being injured despite asking to rush.
  • C. Shashwat will be held liable as he failed to follow the traffic rules.
  • D. The auto-driver, Shashwat and the truck driver are equally liable.
Answer is B is correct. Option A signifies the instructions from Shashwat, which did not permit breaching traffic regulations or consenting to being injured, therefore it is incorrect. Option C is incorrect as Shashwat did not disobey any traffic regulations in the given case. Option D is incorrect as it is not logically coherent since the truck driver’s action was justified to move with the moving traffic on the light turning green, and Shashwat is not at fault as discussed earlier. Therefore, Option B is correct as the case in question clearly reflects the auto-driver’s overzealousness which led to Shashwat’s injuries and hence, the auto-driver will be held liable. Therefore, the reasonably appropriate answer is option B.
Question3:- Romi loaned her precious vase for an exhibition and asked the organiser to take special care of it. The organiser took requisite precautions to keep the vase safe and subsequently put it on display for the exhibition. As a result of a massive earthquake that day, which devastated many buildings and took lives in the area, Romi’s vase is broken. Romi proceeds to sue the organiser for the value of the broken vase. Determine the liability of the organiser.
  • A. The organiser is liable for not taking all the requisite precautions for Romi’s vase.
  • B. The organiser is liable for neglecting to safeguard the vase during the earthquake.
  • C. Romi is liable to no compensation because the organiser is insolvent.
  • D. The earthquake is the cause of damage which evades the organiser’s liability.
Answer is D is correct. Option A is incorrect since the organizer took requisite precautions for safeguarding the vase as stated in the question. Option B is incorrect because the earthquake was severe enough to take lives, and under the given circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect the organizer to prioritize the vase over his life. Option C is incorrect since there is no mention of the organizer’s financial situation in the case. Therefore, Option D, by the process of elimination, is correct as it corresponds to the circumstances leading to the broken vase and further explains the fact of no liability on the part of the organizer. Therefore, the reasonably appropriate answer is option D.
Question4:- Albert had enmity with Franz and to teach him a lesson, one day Albert hits Franz on the head with a metal rod due to which he faints after squealing in pain. Franz was rushed to the hospital where he was declared to have suffered a serious concussion with no internal or serious injuries. On the 7th day of his admission, Franz is tested as he showed symptoms of physical weakness and vertigo, the tests show that everything is normal and the symptoms were a mere side-effect of his recovery medications. On the 10th day, Franz is burning up in a fever and the tests conclude he was suffering from dengue. On the 11th day, Franz dies of dengue as confirmed by his post-mortem reports. Determine Albert’s liability in Franz’s death.
  • A. Albert is liable as his act of striking Franz landed him in the hospital.
  • B. Albert is liable since he is a man of unquestionable character.
  • C. Albert is not liable for Franz’s death since Franz died of dengue and not the head injury.
  • D. Albert is not liable for Franz’s death as he did not intend to kill Franz.
Answer is C is correct. Option A is incorrect as the results from the test reports of the head injuries to Franz from Albert’s acts were not severe enough to cause death. Even if the act landed him in the hospital, Franz did not die due to the head injury and surely, Albert cannot be found guilty of the same. Option B is incorrect as Albert’s character is not worth considering and hence, this option is vague in nature. Option D is incorrect in terms of the law as a blow to the head of a person that is caused by a metal rod would constitute an attempt to murder. Now, depending on the grounds that Albert did not intend to kill Franz would prove to be invalid. Therefore, Option C, on the grounds of the process of elimination, is the correct response as it is the most logically sound argument in determining the cause of Franz’s death. Therefore, the reasonably appropriate answer is option C.
Question5:- Option A is incorrect as the results from the test reports of the head injuries to Franz from Albert’s acts were not severe enough to cause death. Even if the act landed him in the hospital, Franz did not die due to the head injury and surely, Albert cannot be found guilty of the same. Option B is incorrect as Albert’s character is not worth considering and hence, this option is vague in nature. Option D is incorrect in terms of the law as a blow to the head of a person that is caused by a metal rod would constitute an attempt to murder. Now, depending on the grounds that Albert did not intend to kill Franz would prove to be invalid. Therefore, Option C, on the grounds of the process of elimination, is the correct response as it is the most logically sound argument in determining the cause of Franz’s death. Therefore, the reasonably appropriate answer is option C.
  • A. Gary is liable for the grievous hurt caused to Henry as he bowed down.
  • B. Gary is liable for the grievous hurt caused by the bullet as he fired it first.
  • C. Gary is not liable as Henry was hurt as a result of the reflected bullet, fired by Henry himself.
  • D. Gary is liable for not keeping his temper and ego in check.
Answer is C is correct. : Option A is incorrect because Gary’s act of bowing down to spare his life is a reasonable response to being shot. Option B is incorrect since Gary’s shot only grazed Henry’s leg and did not lead to grievous injury resulting in the privation of Henry’s eye. Option D is incorrect on the grounds that neither Gary’s ego nor his temper led to Henry’s grievous hurt. Therefore, by the process of elimination, it can be concluded that Option C is the appropriate response as the facts of the case clearly reflect the circumstances leading to Henry’s injury. Therefore, the reasonably appropriate answer is option C.

Syllabus

Test Series

Notification

Brochure

Result