Free passage-based CLAT tort law practice questions. Five sets across negligence, nuisance, defamation, vicarious liability and occupier\u2019s liability — with detailed answers and explanations. Matches the CLAT 2027 principle-application format.
A person is liable for negligence when they owe a duty of care to another, breach that duty through an act or omission, and the breach directly causes reasonably foreseeable damage. The standard of care is that of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.
Dr. Iyer, a consultant surgeon at a private hospital in Mumbai, performed a routine gall bladder removal on Priya. During the operation, Dr. Iyer left a pair of surgical forceps inside the abdominal cavity. Priya began experiencing severe pain three weeks after discharge and was re-operated on at a different hospital where the forceps were discovered. Priya now seeks to hold Dr. Iyer liable for negligence.
Explanation: The standard of care for a surgeon is objective: what a reasonable surgeon would do. Leaving a foreign object inside a patient is a clear breach.
Explanation: Vicarious liability applies where an employer’s employee acts negligently in the course of employment, regardless of whether the employer directed the negligent act.
Private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of their land. Factors include the nature of the locality, duration, frequency, and sensitivity of the claimant. A one-off act is less likely to be nuisance; a continuous interference is more likely.
Sanjay runs a commercial printing press next to Meena’s residence in a mixed-use Delhi neighbourhood. The press runs from 8 AM to 10 PM daily. Meena complains that the constant noise of printing machinery and the strong chemical smell of ink emissions make it impossible to sleep in the afternoon. Sanjay argues that the area is zoned for commercial use and he has operated the press for 12 years without complaint.
Explanation: Even in a commercial zone, an activity can constitute nuisance if the interference is unreasonable considering the character of the locality.
Explanation: Prescription requires 20 years of uninterrupted use under the Easements Act, not 12.
Defamation is the publication of a false statement to a third party that lowers the reputation of the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. Truth is an absolute defence. Fair comment on matters of public interest is another defence if the comment is honestly held.
Rohan, a journalist, published an article stating that Minister X had embezzled funds from a state welfare scheme. Rohan had received the information from an anonymous source within the state audit office but could not independently verify it. Minister X sued Rohan for defamation. The audit report was later officially released and confirmed the embezzlement.
Explanation: Truth is an absolute defence to defamation regardless of when the truth was established.
Vicarious liability holds an employer liable for torts committed by an employee in the course of employment. The test is whether the tort is closely connected to what the employee was employed to do. Independent contractors are generally not covered.
A cab company, QuickRide, engages drivers on a "partner" basis. Drivers own their vehicles, pay commission to QuickRide, and are not on the company payroll. One driver, Vikram, negligently ran over a pedestrian while accepting a ride through the QuickRide app. The pedestrian seeks to hold QuickRide vicariously liable.
Explanation: Vicarious liability depends on whether the tortfeasor is an employee or a genuinely independent contractor. The label used by the parties is not conclusive — the reality of the relationship is what matters.
An occupier of premises owes a duty of care to visitors. The duty is to take reasonable care to ensure that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which they are invited. The standard of care varies with the category of visitor and the risks involved.
A shopping mall left a recently mopped floor without a warning sign. Aisha, a visitor, slipped and fractured her hip. The mall argues that it had cleaned the floor because of a spillage and that warning signs were briefly placed but removed by a careless trainee. Aisha seeks damages for the injury.
Read the principle first, then the passage, then the question. Apply the principle to the facts — do not import outside legal knowledge unless the principle invites it. CLAT tests principle-application, not memorisation.
Negligence (duty of care, breach, causation), nuisance, defamation, vicarious liability, and occupier’s liability are the five most frequently tested tort topics in CLAT.
Generally no. CLAT provides the principle in the passage. You need to understand how to apply it, not recite Donoghue v Stevenson.
Drill passage-based sets daily, focus on identifying the principle and applying it step by step, and log errors by sub-topic to spot patterns.
Yes. Strict liability (Rylands v Fletcher in common law, MC Mehta doctrine in India) is distinct from negligence because it does not require proof of fault.