CLAT Foundation Practice Test - 04

CLAT Foundation Prep - Module 4

Module 4.1: Legal Reasoning - Defenses to Negligence

Why this matters for CLAT: The real complexity in negligence cases lies in the defenses. Passages will give you scenarios where the injured person was also at fault or knew the risks. Your job is to precisely apply the conditions of these defenses.

Concept Notes: Contributory Negligence & Voluntary Assumption of Risk

1. Contributory Negligence

Concept: Applies when the plaintiff, through their own carelessness, contributed to their own injury. The harm is a result of shared fault.

The Modern Rule: This is not a complete defense. The court apportions blame, and the plaintiff's compensation is reduced by the percentage they are at fault (e.g., if 30% at fault, damages are reduced by 30%).

2. Voluntary Assumption of Risk (Volenti non fit injuria)

Concept: "To a willing person, no injury is done." This is a complete defense. If a plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily agrees to accept a risk, they cannot sue if that risk materializes.

Two Essential Conditions:

• Knowledge of the Risk: Full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk.
• Voluntary Consent: Freely chosen to accept the risk. Consent is not voluntary if given under compulsion (e.g., fear of being fired).

Mentor's Advice (The Key Distinction)

Contributory Negligence is about careless conduct by the plaintiff.

Volenti non fit injuria is about the plaintiff's consent to the risk beforehand.

Contributory Negligence usually just reduces damages. Volenti is a complete bar to getting any damages.

Module 4.2: Logical Reasoning - Parallel Reasoning & Identifying the Principle

Why this matters for CLAT: These question types test abstract thinking. Mastering these skills allows you to see the logical skeleton of any passage, which is essential for quickly finding the answer.

Concept Notes: Matching Structures and Finding Rules

1. Parallel Reasoning

Task: Find an answer choice with an argument that has the exact same logical structure as the one in the passage. Create an abstract "blueprint" of the original argument and test the options against it.

2. Identifying the Principle

Task: Given a specific situation or a set of examples, find the general rule or principle that best explains or justifies the logic presented. Ask yourself, "What broader rule would lead to this specific outcome?"

Access Practice Test

Enter your name and the password to begin.

Your Name:

Password:

Incorrect Password. Please try again.

Foundation Test - 04

Time Left

20:00

Instructions: +1 for a correct answer, -0.25 for a wrong answer. Unanswered questions get 0 marks.

Passage 1: Legal Reasoning
In tort law, a defendant shown to be negligent may still avoid or reduce liability by raising certain defenses. One such defense is volenti non fit injuria, or the voluntary assumption of risk. This principle operates as a complete defense where the plaintiff, with full knowledge of the nature and extent of a risk, voluntarily agrees to incur it. The consent need not be express; it can be implied from conduct. For instance, participants and spectators in lawful sports are generally considered to have consented to the ordinary risks associated with that sport. A distinct defense is that of contributory negligence. This occurs when the plaintiff's own failure to take reasonable care for their safety contributes to the harm they suffer. Under modern law, contributory negligence is not a complete defense but serves to reduce the plaintiff's damages in proportion to their degree of fault. It is crucial to distinguish the two: volenti is about consenting to a risk, while contributory negligence is about careless conduct contributing to the injury.

1. Rohan participates in a friendly, organized football match. During the game, another player, Arjun, tackles Rohan in a manner that is aggressive but within the accepted rules of play. Rohan falls awkwardly and breaks his leg. If Rohan sues Arjun, which is the most likely outcome?

(A) Arjun is liable, as his aggressive tackle directly caused the injury.(B) Arjun is not liable, as Rohan, by playing football, implicitly consented to the risk of injury from tackles that are part of the game.(C) Arjun's liability will be reduced because Rohan was also running fast, thereby contributing to the fall.(D) Arjun is liable, but only if he is a professional player and Rohan is an amateur.

2. A driver, Priya, is speeding down a road. A motorcyclist, Karan, suddenly enters the main road from a side lane without stopping or looking. Priya swerves but cannot avoid a collision, and Karan is injured. If Karan sues Priya, the court is most likely to find that:

(A) Priya is not liable as Karan's act of entering the road without looking was the sole cause of the accident.(B) Priya is fully liable as her speeding was a clear act of negligence.(C) The defense of volenti non fit injuria applies, as driving on roads has inherent risks.(D) Both parties were negligent, and Karan's damages will be reduced due to his contributory negligence.

3. Which of the following scenarios is the clearest application of the defense of volenti non fit injuria?

(A) A patient who was not informed of the risks of a surgery suffers complications.(B) A homeowner who smells a gas leak enters the kitchen with a lit candle to investigate and is injured in an explosion.(C) A person accepts a ride from a friend whom they know to be heavily intoxicated and is injured when the friend crashes the car.(D) A factory worker is injured by an unsafe machine that their employer forced them to use under threat of dismissal.

4. The legal reasoning for reducing damages in contributory negligence, as opposed to denying them completely, is that:

(A) It is often difficult to determine who was more at fault.(B) The defendant, being negligent, should still bear some responsibility for the harm they helped cause.(C) Plaintiffs should not be punished for minor lapses in their own judgment.(D) The principle of volenti non fit injuria is considered outdated.

5. Imagine in the football scenario (Q1), Arjun had deliberately punched Rohan in the face after a tackle, breaking his nose. How would this change the application of the defenses?

(A) The outcome would be the same, as violence is a risk in contact sports.(B) The defense of contributory negligence would apply, as Rohan should have anticipated such behavior.(C) The defense of volenti non fit injuria would likely fail, as a player consents to risks within the rules, not to deliberate acts of violence outside the scope of the game.(D) The defense of volenti non fit injuria would succeed, but the defense of contributory negligence would fail.

Passage 2: Logical Reasoning
Critics of the film industry often argue that the proliferation of cinematic sequels, remakes, and superhero franchises is a sign of creative bankruptcy. They contend that studios, driven by a desire for guaranteed profits, are simply recycling old ideas rather than investing in original, thought-provoking screenplays. This perspective, however, misunderstands the nature of modern storytelling. Just as Shakespearean tragedies were re-interpretations of older myths and historical accounts, these modern "franchise films" are essentially a form of contemporary mythology. They explore timeless themes—heroism, sacrifice, and the struggle between good and evil—using a shared visual language and character archetypes that resonate with a global audience. Therefore, these films are not a sign of creative failure but are a valid and culturally significant mode of myth-making for the 21st century.

6. Which of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most parallel to that used in the passage?

(A) Some people claim that graffiti is vandalism. However, many works of graffiti show immense artistic skill and political commentary, so they should be considered a legitimate art form.(B) People complain about the high price of concert tickets. But staging a concert involves huge costs for the venue, security, and performers. Therefore, the high prices are justified.(C) Many historians argue that the industrial revolution was a period of great progress. But they overlook the immense social costs, like child labor and pollution. Thus, its legacy is more complicated than it appears.(D) Some philosophers argue that free will is an illusion. They point to deterministic laws of physics as proof. Therefore, our choices are not truly our own.

7. Which of the following is the primary principle that the author uses to defend franchise films?

(A) The financial success of a film is the best measure of its cultural significance.(B) A work of art should be judged based on its engagement with timeless, universal themes, not on its originality of plot.(C) Modern audiences are incapable of appreciating complex, original screenplays.(D) Any story based on older myths should be considered a culturally significant work.

8. The author's comparison of franchise films to Shakespearean tragedies is intended to:

(A) Argue that franchise films are of the same literary quality as Shakespeare's plays.(B) Suggest that Shakespeare also faced criticism for a lack of originality.(C) Provide a historical precedent to legitimize the practice of re-interpreting existing stories.(D) Imply that both forms of storytelling are primarily aimed at commercial success.

9. What is the main point of the argument presented in the passage?

(A) Studios are not motivated by profit when producing franchise films.(B) Franchise films should be seen as a modern form of myth-making, not as a failure of creativity.(C) Shakespeare's plays are essentially the same as modern superhero movies.(D) Critics of the film industry do not understand the economics of movie production.

10. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's argument?

(A) The majority of original screenplays that studios invest in fail to make a profit.(B) Most audience members for franchise films state that they watch them for pure entertainment and escapism, not for engagement with mythological themes.(C) Many Shakespearean scholars argue that the true genius of his work lies not in the borrowed plots but in his revolutionary use of language and psychological depth.(D) Several critically acclaimed independent films have explored the theme of heroism in new and original ways.

Passage 3: Legal Reasoning
The defense of volenti non fit injuria is subject to strict limitations, particularly in the context of employment and rescue. The law is hesitant to apply the defense against an employee who is injured by an unsafe practice at their workplace. The rationale is that the employee's consent to the risk may not be truly voluntary, as it is often given under economic compulsion—the fear of losing one's livelihood. The consent is vitiated by the unequal power dynamic between the employer and employee. Similarly, the law generally does not apply the defense to a rescuer. A person who voluntarily intervenes to save another from a dangerous situation created by the defendant's negligence is not considered to have voluntarily assumed the risk. The law holds that "danger invites rescue," and it would be against public policy to penalize a rescuer's brave and humane act by denying them a claim if they are injured in the process.

11. A miner, pointing out a structural defect in a mine shaft to his supervisor, is told to "get on with the work or go home." Knowing the risk but needing the job, he enters the shaft, which collapses and injures him. He sues the mining company. The company claims he voluntarily assumed the risk. This defense will likely:

(A) Succeed, because the miner had full knowledge of the structural defect.(B) Succeed, because the miner made a conscious choice to enter the shaft.(C) Fail, because the miner's consent was not truly voluntary due to economic duress.(D) Fail, because mining is an inherently dangerous activity for which the company is always liable.

12. A fire breaks out in an apartment building due to the landlord's faulty wiring. A bystander, seeing a child trapped on a balcony, rushes into the burning building to save her. The bystander suffers severe burns and sues the landlord. The landlord argues the bystander voluntarily assumed the risk. The court will likely rule that:

(A) The landlord is not liable, as the bystander was a trespasser.(B) The landlord is not liable, as the bystander knowingly and voluntarily entered a dangerous situation.(C) The landlord is liable, as the defense of volenti does not apply to rescuers acting to save others from a defendant's negligence.(D) The landlord's liability will be reduced due to the bystander's contributory negligence.

13. How does the principle "danger invites rescue" affect the application of tort law?

(A) It creates a special duty for citizens to rescue others who are in peril.(B) It absolves a rescuer of any liability if they accidentally harm the person they are trying to save.(C) It prevents a negligent defendant from using the defense of voluntary assumption of risk against a rescuer.(D) It makes the original victim of the danger responsible for any injuries suffered by their rescuer.

14. The core principle underlying the exceptions for both employees and rescuers is that:

(A) The law prioritizes human life and livelihood over abstract legal doctrines.(B) A defendant who creates a dangerous situation should foresee that others might be compelled to face it.(C) The consent required for the volenti defense must be free from any form of external compulsion or moral imperative.(D) Employees and rescuers are considered to lack the mental capacity to properly assess risk.

15. A window cleaner is provided with a safety harness by his employer. He finds it uncomfortable and decides not to wear it. He falls and is injured. He sues his employer. The employer's strongest defense would be:

(A) Volenti non fit injuria, as the cleaner voluntarily chose to take the risk.(B) Contributory negligence, as the cleaner's own careless act of not wearing the provided safety equipment was a major cause of his injury.(C) That the cleaner was an independent contractor, not an employee.(D) That the harness was uncomfortable, justifying the cleaner's decision not to wear it.

Passage 4: Logical Reasoning
Consider the following set of judgments. Case 1: A city council is held liable for failing to install a guardrail on a sharp mountain curve after several accidents had occurred there. Case 2: A school board is found negligent for not implementing a stricter background check policy for its staff after a teacher with a known history of misconduct harms a student. Case 3: A product manufacturer is successfully sued for not recalling a product despite receiving numerous reports that it was overheating and causing fires. In all these instances, the defendant was not the initial cause of the harm (a driver's error, a teacher's act, a product defect), but was nonetheless held responsible.

16. Which of the following principles best explains the legal reasoning underlying the judgments in all three cases?

(A) An entity is liable for any harm that occurs on its property or involves its products.(B) Once an entity is made aware of a recurring danger over which it has authority, it has an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to prevent future harm, and a failure to do so constitutes negligence.(C) Public bodies like city councils and school boards have a higher duty of care towards citizens than private manufacturers.(D) The entity with the most financial resources ("deepest pockets") is held responsible for compensating victims.

17. Which of the following situations would be justified by the same principle identified in the passage?

(A) A car company is held liable for a driver who causes an accident while drunk driving one of their cars.(B) An internet service provider is sued because a user posts defamatory material online.(C) A dog owner is held liable after their dog, which had never shown aggression before, suddenly bites a neighbor.(D) An apartment building owner who has received multiple complaints about broken locks on the main entrance is held liable when an intruder enters and assaults a resident.

18. The reasoning in the passage is best described as:

(A) Reasoning from a general rule to a specific conclusion.(B) Reasoning by analogy.(C) Reasoning from a set of specific instances to a general principle.(D) Reasoning based on eliminating alternative explanations.

19. A lawyer arguing against the judgment in Case 1 (the city council) would most likely challenge which assumption?

(A) The city council had the funds available to install a guardrail.(B) The drivers who had accidents were not themselves negligent.(C) Guardrails are always effective in preventing accidents on sharp curves.(D) The city council was aware of the prior accidents.

20. The common thread connecting the defendants in all three cases is that they all had:

(A) A direct contractual relationship with the victims.(B) The intention to cause harm to the victims.(C) The power and knowledge to act to prevent a known danger.(D) A legal obligation to insure against such risks.

Well Done!

Your Final Score

0.00

0 Correct

0 Incorrect

0 Unanswered

Detailed Analysis