Question:

Legal Principle: Negligence is the absence of care by one party which results in some damage to another. Damage is an essential ingredient to constitute a tort of negligence.
Fact Situation: Mistry left his ladder on the public road while unloading it from a truck when he went to open the shutters of his shop. Saini, who was riding his motorcycle, had to swerve hard to avoid hitting the ladder as he came with speed on the road. Saini fell down but was miraculously not injured.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Show Hint

In negligence cases, "damage" is not limited to physical injury; it also includes harm caused by the negligent act, even if no serious injury results.
Updated On: Aug 14, 2025
  • Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was not injured though he fell down.
  • Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder.
  • Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was speeding on the road.
  • Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since he was careless in leaving the ladder on the road.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation


Step 1: Understanding the legal principle
- Negligence involves breach of a duty of care owed to others.
- There must be a causal connection between the negligent act and the resulting damage.
- "Damage" in legal terms includes both physical injury and harm caused by an accident, even if the injury is minor or avoided narrowly.
Step 2: Applying the principle to the facts
- Mistry left his ladder on a public road — this is a breach of his duty to ensure public safety.
- Saini, while riding his motorcycle, was forced to swerve to avoid the ladder.
- This swerving directly caused his fall, establishing the causal link.
Step 3: Clarifying the damage requirement
- Although Saini was not physically injured, the fall itself constitutes "damage" in tort law, since it resulted from the negligent act.
- The absence of physical injury does not negate liability if harm or risk was caused.
Step 4: Conclusion
- Mistry is liable because his negligent act (leaving the ladder) directly caused Saini’s accident.
\[ \boxed{\text{Mistry is liable for negligence under tort law.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions