1
LAW CLAT ACHIEVERS 2024
Law Of Torts
PASSAGE-1
Tort law encompasses a wide range of civil wrongs
committed against individuals or their property,
providing a legal framework to address the harm
caused by wrongful acts. At its core, tort revolves
around three key elements: a wrongful act, legal
damage, and legal remedies. An unlawful act is any
action or omission that violates a legal duty owed to
another person, resulting in harm or injury. This can
include acts of negligence, intentional wrongdoing,
or strict liability offences. Legal damage refers to the
actual harm suffered by the victim as a direct
consequence of the wrongful act. It can encompass
physical injuries, emotional distress, property
damage, or financial losses. Lastly, tort law provides
a mechanism for seeking legal remedies or
compensation for the damages incurred. These
remedies can take various forms, such as monetary
compensation (damages), injunctions to prevent
future harm, or specific performance to enforce a
contractual obligation. The objective of tort law is to
restore the injured party to the position they were in
before the wrongful act occurred, to deter similar
misconduct in the future, and to promote fairness and
justice in society.
1. Several individuals lost their lives due to the
unfortunate collapse of the Clock Tower, which was
located opposite the Town Hall in the bustling main
Bazar of Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The Clock Tower,
owned and operated by the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, had been standing for 80 years, but the
structure that gave way had a typical lifespan of
around 40-45 years, taking into account the type of
mortar used in its construction. As the Clock Tower
was exclusively under the control and responsibility
of the Municipal Corporation, the tragic incident
raised questions about the maintenance and oversight
of public structures, prompting a closer examination
of the circumstances surrounding the collapse and
whether the Municipal Corporation will be liable.
DPP-01
(A) The Municipal Corporation will not be liable as
the tower was 80 years old, and they cannot do
anything regarding it.
(B) No one will be liable as it was an unfortunate
accident.
(C) The Municipal Corporation will be liable as it
comes under its control of it.
(D) The municipal Corporation will be liable
because they fail to make proper repairs to the
tower.
2. The plaintiff, Matthew Ashby, was a resident of
Aylesbury, while the defendant, Mr White, held the
position of a constable. The dispute arose when
White prevented Ashby from exercising his
fundamental right to vote by asserting that Ashby was
not a settled resident. However, Ashby, confident in
his status as a registered voter, refused to accept this
denial of his voting rights. Consequently, Ashby
decided to take legal action against Mr White,
seeking damages for the violation of his right to vote.
(A) Mr White will not be liable as there was no
physical damage to Mr Ashby.
(B) Mr White will be liable as he caused legal
damages because it was a legal right of Mr
Ashby to vote, and he was a registered voter.
(C) Mr White will not be liable because the
candidate won the election whom Mr Ashby
decided to vote for, and therefore, no damage
was there.
(D) Both A and C
3. The defendant, Mr Pickles, held ownership of a piece
of land that contained underground streams
supplying water to the plaintiff's waterworks. With
the intention to manipulate the situation, the
defendant excavated a shaft on his land, aiming to
intercept the underground water that flowed into the
plaintiff's adjacent reservoir. The underlying motive
behind this action was to coerce the plaintiffs into
purchasing his land. As a consequence of the
defendant's actions, the water supply to the plaintiff's

operations was significantly impacted. It became
evident from the evidence presented that the
defendant's objective was not immediate personal
gain but rather to deprive the plaintiffs of the water
flowing from his land. Seeking justice, the plaintiffs,
Bradford Corporation, pursued an injunction to
prevent the defendant from continuing with the shaft
excavation, alleging that his primary purpose was to
cause harm as they had refused to pay an exorbitant
price for his land. Will the defendant be liable?
(A) The defendant will not be liable as he did not do
any illegal act, and he did everything on his land
only.
PASSAGE-2
(B) The defendant will be liable as there was damage
caused to the plaintiff due to his act.
(C) The defendant will be liable as there was malice
motive to cause harm to the plaintiff.
(D) Both B and C
4. After a road traffic accident caused by the defendant,
the plaintiff, who was a child, suffered injuries to his
right leg. As a result, the plaintiff spent three months
in the hospital and required daily visits for an
extended period afterwards. To care for the plaintiff,
his mother had to leave her part-time job, resulting in
a loss of wages. While the plaintiff's mother does not
have a direct cause of action against the defendant,
the question arises as to whether the plaintiff can seek
compensation for his mother's lost wages, which
were necessary due to the defendant's wrongdoing.
(A) The defendant will only be liable to pay
compensation to the boy.
(B) The defendant will be liable for compensation
for his mother's lost wage due to the defendant's
wrongdoing.
(C) The defendant will pay only the compensation to
the boy as he caused harm to the boy only.
(D) The defendant will be liable to pay the
compensation to the boy and can pay the
compensation to the mother if he wants.
5. The appellants owned a house located in the local
Gunj area of Jabalpur. One side of the house was
connected to the highway, with a bicycle wheel fixed
to the wall. Unfortunately, on a rainy day, the wall of
the house collapsed, leading to the tragic death of two
children who were associated with the bicycle stall.
Consequently, a case was filed against the owner of
the house, holding them responsible for the incident.
2
(A) The defendant will be liable for the incident as
he could have asked the children not to stand
near it.
(B) The defendant will be liable to pay
compensation as it was a normal rainfall, and
this could have been prevented with sensible
care.
(C) The defendant will not be liable as he cannot
control the rainfall.
(D) The defendant will not be liable as the children
should not have stood there.
Torts, derived from the Latin word "tortus" meaning
"wrong," are civil wrongs under common law that do
not involve a breach of contract. They encompass
intentional or negligent acts that cause harm to
another person. The essential elements of a tort
include a wrongful act or omission, damages suffered
by the plaintiff, and a causal link between the
defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's harm. The
nature and scope of torts are broad and encompass
various categories. Negligence is a common type of
tort that involves the failure to exercise reasonable
care in a given situation. Intentional torts, on the other
hand, are deliberate acts causing harm, such as
assault, battery, trespass, and defamation. Strict
liability torts hold defendants liable for harm caused,
regardless of negligence, such as in cases of product
liability and nuisance.
Several landmark cases have significantly shaped tort
law:
Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): This case established
the principle of negligence. It involved a woman who
suffered injuries after consuming a bottle of ginger
beer containing a decomposed snail. The court held
the manufacturer liable, even though they were
unaware of the snail's presence.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928): This
case introduced the "foreseeability" principle. It
centred around a woman injured by an explosion
caused by a railroad employee throwing fireworks
onto the tracks. The court ruled that the railroad
company was not liable because the harm was not
reasonably foreseeable.
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): This case established the
principle of strict liability. It concerned a mill owner
storing water that flooded a neighbouring property.

The court held the mill owner responsible for the
damage, even in the absence of negligence.
Wagon Mound (No. 2) (1961): This case established
the "remoteness of damage" principle. It involved a
ship negligently discharging fuel oil that
subsequently damaged a nearby beach. The court
determined that the ship's owners were not liable
because the damage was too remote.
These landmark cases contribute to the understanding
and development of tort law. They exemplify the
principles of negligence, foreseeability, strict
liability, and the limits of liability based on the
remoteness of damage. By providing guidance on
standards of conduct, liability, and compensation, tort
law serves as an important mechanism for seeking
redress, deterring harmful behaviour, and
maintaining social order.
6. John, a professional gardener, fails to properly secure
a large branch while pruning a tree in his neighbour,
Mary's, garden. The branch falls and damages Mary's
expensive garden sculpture. Can Mary successfully
sue John for negligence based on the damage to her
garden sculpture?
(A) Yes, because John failed to exercise reasonable
care while performing his work.
(B) No, because John didn't intentionally cause
harm to Mary's property.
(C) Yes, because John is a professional gardener
and should be held to a higher standard.
(D) No, because the branch was part of Mary's own
tree.
7. Alex, an event organizer, sets up a fireworks display
at a local park. Unfortunately, one firework misfires
into a dense crowd, causing injuries to several people.
The fireworks were certified and Alex followed all
safety measures while setting up the display. Can the
injured parties successfully sue Alex based on the
"foreseeability" principle?
(A) Yes, because Alex set up the fireworks display
that caused the injuries.
(B) No, because Alex took all necessary precautions
while setting up the display.
(C) Yes, because injury from a misfired firework is a
foreseeable risk.
(D) No, because the firework misfired due to a
manufacturing defect, not Alex's actions.
3
8. A petting zoo owned by Emily has a rare, docile
species of kangaroo. One day, without any
provocation, a kangaroo escapes its enclosure and
injures a visitor, Tim. Despite following all animal
safety regulations, Emily could not prevent the
incident. Can Tim successfully sue Emily based on
the principle of strict liability?
(A) Yes, because Emily is responsible for any harm
caused by her kangaroo, regardless of her
precautions.
(B) No, because Emily had followed all animal
safety regulations and the kangaroo acted
unexpectedly.
(C) Yes, but only if Tim can prove that Emily had
been negligent in her duties.
(D) No, because the kangaroo, not Emily, caused
the injury to Tim.
9. Neil, a building contractor, was working on a
construction site near a school. Despite following all
safety protocols, a loud explosion occurred due to
some equipment malfunctioning. This resulted in a
shockwave that shattered several windows of the
school, causing minor injuries to some students. Can
the school successfully sue Neil based on the
"remoteness of damage" principle?
(A) Yes, because the construction site is in close
proximity to the school.
(B) No, because Neil followed all safety protocols
while working on the construction site.
(C) Yes, because Neil's construction site caused the
explosion which resulted in injuries.
(D) No, because the damage to the school was too
remote a consequence of the construction site's
explosion.
10. Fred owns a grocery store. One day, a customer,
Sally, slips on a spilled liquid in one of the aisles and
gets injured. The spill was accidental, and Fred
wasn't aware of it until the incident happened. Which
category of tort is applicable in the case of Sally's
injury?
(A) Intentional tort, because Fred owns the grocery
store where the injury occurred.
(B) Strict liability tort, because the injury happened
in Fred's store.
 4

(C) Negligence, because Fred was not aware of the

spill that caused the injury.
(D) Neither, because the spill was accidental and
Fred wasn't aware of it.
 5

Answer Key
1. (D) 6. (A)
2. (B) 7. (C)
3. (A) 8. (A)
4. (B) 9. (D)
5. (B) 10. (C)

Hints & Solutions
PASSAGE 1
1. Correct Option D
(H & S)
The Municipal Corporation, having ownership and
control of a clock tower in the heart of the city, does
not keep it in proper repair. Failure to do so results in
the deaths of several people; the Corporation would
be liable for its omission to take care of. Option d is
better than option c because it is more reasonable, as
you cannot make anyone liable just because it comes
under anyone.
Hence, the correct option is D.
2. Correct Option B
(H & S)
In light of the violation of the plaintiff's legal rights,
despite the absence of physical damages, the
defendant will bear the liability to provide
compensation because providing a remedy for such a
violation is necessary.
Hence, the correct option is B
3. Correct Option A
(H & S)
It was held that even though the harm to the plaintiffs
has been caused maliciously, no action for the same
can lie Unless it is established that the defendant
committed an illegal act that caused the plaintiffs to
suffer a legal injury.
Hence, the correct option is A.
4. Correct Option B
(H & S)
The infant plaintiff has the right to seek compensation
for his mother's lost wages as a result of nursing him,
which was necessary due to the defendant's
wrongdoing. Since the plaintiff's need for nursing
services provided by his mother is considered part of
the overall loss, he is entitled to recover the financial
damages representing his mother's lost wages.
Hence, the correct option is B
6
5. Correct Option B
(H & S)
The defendant was found responsible and held liable
for the incident as the rainfall, which measured 2.66
inches, was considered within the normal range. As a
result, the defendant was ordered to provide
compensation to the plaintiff.
Hence, the correct option is B.
PASSAGE 2
6. Correct Option A
(H & S)
Option A is correct because the passage states that
negligence involves the failure to exercise reasonable
care, which is what John did by not securing the
branch properly. Option B is incorrect because the
passage establishes that negligence is a type of tort
that doesn't require intent to cause harm. Option C is
incorrect because the passage does not indicate that
professional status demands a higher standard of care
in terms of tort law. Option D is incorrect because the
passage specifies that a wrongful act or omission
causing damage constitutes a tort, irrespective of the
source of the act or omission.
7. Correct Option C
(H & S)
Option C is correct because the passage implies that
the harm must be reasonably foreseeable for a party
to be liable, and injury from a misfired firework
during a display is a foreseeable risk. Option A is
incorrect because the passage states that liability
under the "foreseeability" principle depends on
whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable, not
merely on causing the harm. Option B is incorrect
because even though Alex took precautions, the
passage does not state that taking precautions
absolves a party from liability if the harm was
reasonably foreseeable. Option D is incorrect because
the passage does not exclude liability based on the
source of the risk, so long as the harm is foreseeable.

8. Correct Option A
(H & S)
Option A is correct because the passage states that
under strict liability, defendants are liable for harm
caused, regardless of negligence. Option B is
incorrect because the passage specifies that even if
precautions are taken, under strict liability, the person
can still be held liable for the harm caused. Option C
is incorrect because, according to the passage, strict
liability holds defendants liable regardless of
negligence. Option D is incorrect because the passage
indicates that the one responsible for the entity
causing the harm is liable under strict liability.
9. Correct Option D
(H & S)
Option D is correct because the passage states that the
"remoteness of damage" principle limits liability
when the damage is too remote a consequence of the
defendant's actions. In this case, an explosion causing
window to shatter at a neighbouring school may be
considered too indirect or remote. Option A is
incorrect because the passage states that the
"remoteness of damage" principle is not based on
physical distance but on the connection between the
action and the resulting harm. Option B is incorrect
PW Web/App - https://smart.link/7wwosivoicgd4
Library- https://smart.link/sdfez8ejd80if
7
because, as per the passage, following safety
protocols does not necessarily exclude liability if the
damage was a foreseeable consequence of the
defendant's actions. Option C is incorrect because
while the explosion at Neil's site did cause the
damage, the passage highlights that the damage must
not be too remote or indirect a consequence of the
defendant's actions.
10. Correct Option C
(H & S)
Option C is correct because the passage states that
negligence involves the failure to exercise reasonable
care in a given situation, and Fred was not aware of
the spill that caused the injury, indicating a lack of
reasonable care. Option A is incorrect because the
passage states that intentional torts involve deliberate
acts causing harm, and there was no deliberate act by
Fred in this case. Option B is incorrect because the
passage specifies that strict liability torts hold
defendants liable for harm caused, regardless of
negligence, typically in cases of product liability and
nuisance, which do not apply in this situation. Option
D is incorrect because the passage mentions that
negligence involves a failure to exercise reasonable
care, which can apply even if the harm was accidental
and unknown to the defendant.