22 days left — Registration closes 2026-10-31.

Legal Reasoning · 5 questions · about 1 min to read

Law of Negligence

Read the passage, answer the questions, then open each answer to check it. The explanation says why the right option is right.

The passage

Read, then answer

The law of negligence imposes a duty of care upon persons whose conduct may foreseeably harm others. The foundational test was established in the English case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932), in which Lord Atkin formulated the ‘neighbour principle’: you owe a duty of care to those who you can reasonably foresee will be affected by your act or omission. The neighbour is not the legal neighbour (one who is physically adjacent) but the person who is sufficiently proximate to be harmed by carelessness.

For a negligence claim to succeed, three elements must be established: (i) the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care; (ii) the defendant breached that duty; and (iii) the breach caused the claimant’s loss or damage. The element of causation requires that the defendant’s breach be the actual and proximate cause of the loss. If the loss would have occurred even without the defendant’s breach, causation is not established. The standard for breach is what a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have done — not what an expert or the most cautious person would do, but the ordinarily prudent person.

A defendant who establishes that the claimant contributed to their own injury through their own carelessness may rely on the defence of contributory negligence, which may reduce but not eliminate the damages awarded to the claimant.

  1. Q1. Under Lord Atkin’s ‘neighbour principle,’ a duty of care is owed to:

    1. Only those who are physically adjacent to the defendant
    2. All members of society who might be indirectly affected by the defendant’s actions
    3. Those who can reasonably be foreseen to be affected by the defendant’s act or omission
    4. Only those who have a contractual relationship with the defendant
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Those who can reasonably be foreseen to be affected by the defendant’s act or omission

    Lord Atkin's neighbour principle as described in the passage: 'you owe a duty of care to those who you can reasonably foresee will be affected by your act or omission.'

  2. Q2. A hospital allows an unqualified person to perform surgery on a patient, resulting in the patient’s death. Which element of negligence is most clearly established?

    1. Causation only — the death was caused by the surgery
    2. Duty of care and breach — the hospital clearly owed the patient a duty and allowing an unqualified surgeon was below the standard of an ordinarily prudent medical institution
    3. Breach only — because the standard is what an expert would do
    4. None — the patient consented to the surgery
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Duty of care and breach — the hospital clearly owed the patient a duty and allowing an unqualified surgeon was below the standard of an ordinarily prudent medical institution

    A hospital clearly owes a duty of care to its patients (they are foreseeable victims of carelessness). Allowing an unqualified person to operate is a breach of the standard of the ordinarily prudent medical institution. Both duty and breach are clearly established.

  3. Q3. A driver runs a red light at 3 AM on an empty road and causes no harm. A pedestrian who was not visible crosses on red 30 seconds later and is struck by a different vehicle. Is the first driver’s act the proximate cause of the pedestrian’s injury?

    1. Yes, because the first driver created a dangerous situation on the road
    2. Yes, because running a red light is always a proximate cause of any subsequent road accident
    3. No, because the loss would have occurred even without the first driver’s breach, and a different vehicle caused the injury
    4. No, because the first driver owed no duty of care to the pedestrian
    Show answer

    Answer: C. No, because the loss would have occurred even without the first driver’s breach, and a different vehicle caused the injury

    The passage states causation requires 'the defendant's breach be the actual and proximate cause of the loss. If the loss would have occurred even without the defendant's breach, causation is not established.' The pedestrian was struck by a different vehicle; the first driver's act was not the proximate cause.

  4. Q4. The standard for breach of duty in negligence is that of:

    1. The most expert or cautious person in the defendant’s field
    2. The ordinarily prudent person in the defendant’s position
    3. The defendant themselves — what they personally believed was reasonable
    4. The victim — what the victim would have expected from the defendant
    Show answer

    Answer: B. The ordinarily prudent person in the defendant’s position

    The passage states: 'The standard for breach is what a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have done — not what an expert or the most cautious person would do, but the ordinarily prudent person.'

  5. Q5. A cyclist who was not wearing a helmet is struck by a negligent driver. The cyclist suffers a head injury that would have been less severe had they been wearing a helmet. Which defence may the driver raise?

    1. Volenti non fit injuria — the cyclist accepted the risk of riding without a helmet
    2. Contributory negligence — the cyclist contributed to their own injury through their own carelessness
    3. Novus actus interveniens — the cyclist’s decision to ride without a helmet breaks the chain of causation
    4. Necessity — the driver was unable to avoid striking the cyclist
    Show answer

    Answer: B. Contributory negligence — the cyclist contributed to their own injury through their own carelessness

    The passage defines contributory negligence: 'A defendant who establishes that the claimant contributed to their own injury through their own carelessness may rely on the defence of contributory negligence.' Not wearing a helmet when it would reduce injury severity is contributory negligence.

Keep going

More Legal Reasoning passages

Next: Marks and Confusion · All passages · Legal Reasoning practice

Prepare with CLATcoach, free

A free account gives you a full mock, a past paper for every exam, the daily questions, twelve Legal GK headings and a report on where you stand.

Create a free account
Where next

Continue the journey

Free · 30 minutesThe CLAT diagnosticSee where you stand in each section before you plan.Take it →
Free · 30 Nov – 3 DecThe National MockOne paper, all of India, an all-India rank.Register →
Free to readThe Legal GK LibraryTwelve headings of legal GK, open to everyone.Browse →