Legal Reasoning
Image Courtesy :

Sample Legal Aptitude Questions : Practice and Prepare. Comment below to know where you stand among the competition.

With CLAT 2018 around the corner, we at iPleaders have made it our mission to help the aspirant community by making you practice and providing you with a little insight into what to expect in the exam.

After the energetic response from the aspirants on How Not To Prepare For CLAT, it was only natural for us to throw some more questions at you and help you take your preparations forward accordingly after self-analysis.

Let’s get started with a few Legal Aptitude questions. Post your answers in the comments to know where you stand. Good luck! 🙂

Download Now

Question 1:
PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsound state of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or something that he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.

FACTS: X takes his son Y who is three years old, for bathing to the well. He throws his son inside the well so that the son can have a good bath. After 10 minutes he also jumps into the well to take bath and get his son out of the well. Both were rescued by the villagers but his son was found dead.

A) X has committed culpable homicide amounting to murder
B) X has committed murder
C) X has done no offence as he can plead the defense of unsound state of mind
D) None of the above

Question 2:
PRINCIPLE: A minor is liable for torts committed by him.

Explanation: A minor is not liable for the torts committed by him when there is significant mental element to the tort such as defamation etc

FACTS: Tony, a minor, hires a horse from Mr. A for the purpose of riding who expressly mentions that it is not for ‘jumping’. Tony tries to get the horse over a high fence and horse is killed in the process. Mr. A sues Tony.

A) Tony is not liable as he is minor.
B) Tony is not liable as act done by him involved mental thinking.
C) Tony is not liable as jumping is a reasonable thing to do with horse.
D) Tony is liable.

Question 3:
PRINCIPLE (i): Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of land.
PRINCIPLE (ii): Public nuisance is an obstruction to the right of public in general.
PRINCIPLE (iii): Private nuisance is an obstruction to the right of private parties.

FACTS: Zafar runs a scrap metal business. His business generates a great amount of metal waste. Dumping it is a really big problem. He sometimes takes an easy way out and dumps it in some nearby place where he thinks nobody will notice. This however backfires sometimes. For example the one time he tried dumping it on the road adjacent to his business, he ended up blocking it partly thereby causing difficulty to people who used that road.
Only if one person was using the road, then will it be public or private nuisance?

A) Public nuisance.
B) Private nuisance.
C) It depends on whether that person is a private party or public servant.
D) None of the above

Question 4:
PRINCIPLE: Damage without violation of any legal right does not give rise to a tort.

FACTS: Punkita, who owned a mill, had been using water from a rain-fed stream for her mill, for the past 20 years. One fine day, Utkarsh, her neighbour, sunk a well on his land and pumped large quantities of water, thus depriving Punkita of the quantity of water she used to draw. This caused heavy losses to Punkita. Decide.

A) Utkarsh committed a tort. He has caused damage to Punkita in the form of heavy losses which she suffered.
B) Utkarsh‘s behaviour was only unfriendly but not unlawful.
C) Punkita‘s legal right to the usage of water has been violated by Utkarsh. Punkita made him liable.
D) None of these

Question 5:
PRINCIPLE: The actual use of unlawful force against a person without any lawful justification constitutes the tort of battery. In such a case, the use of force has to be intentional.

FACTS: One morning when Sandeep and his friends, Varan and Blair, were hanging out at the McLaren‘s pub. Blair pointed out a very beautiful girl to Sandeep. The girl was sitting alone at the bar. Sandeep, with the intention of flirting with her. He went up to her and introduced himself. Before he could say anything more, the girl threw her drink in his face as she was suffering from heartbreak and did not want to talk to him. Sandeep decides to sue the girl for battery.

A) The girl cannot be blamed as she was suffering from heartbreak. Sandeep got what he deserved.
B) The girl realised that Sandeep was flirting with her and her behaviour can be justified on the grounds of self defence.
C) The girl had a justification to throw the drink in his face. The use of force was completely lawful and hence battery has not been committed.
D) The girl has committed battery as she used unlawful force to ward off Sandeep. Moreover, her act was intentional.

So, how are we doing so far? Making sense of lengthy, multiple-principle questions can be tough and also time consuming. You can visit here to learn from the exam toppers themselves and let go of all your worries regarding legal aptitude.

Question 6:
PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for all the wrongs committed by servant during the course of employment

FACTS: Ishan sends his servant Gopi to pick up his 10 years old bro. From the railway station. While Gopi is waiting on the platform he sees two children fighting and running about. He rushes to intervene but while doing so he knocks off another Mr Dwivedi who is carrying glass plates. The plates fall and get smashed . Mr dwivedi wants to sue Ishan

(A) Ishan would b liable for the wrong committed by Gopi because waiting on the platform was part of his employment. .
(B) Ishan would not b liable for the wrong committed by gopi because he could not have foreseen what gopi would get up to while waiting on the platform. He had authorized him only to wait and not to intervene in children fights

Question 7:
PRINCIPLE: Anyone who brings a dangerous thing onto his land for some non-natural purposes and such escapes, he is liable for strict liability.

FACTS: Meher was passionate for dogs. She bought a small puppy for her house. The puppy grew big in a couple of years. One day while leaving for her tuition class, she forgot to leash the dog. The dog saw a street dog and chased it. While chasing he pounced upon Mrs. Godha. Mrs. Godha was injured. Decide.

A) Meher is liable for nuisance.
B) Meher is not liable for Strict Liability.
C) Meher is liable for Strict Liability.
D) Meher is liable for negligence.

Question 8:
PRINCIPLE: Whoever stores a substance that could potentially cause damage on escape shall be absolutely liable for any damage caused by the escape of the substance from its premises. The person will be liable for the tort of negligence.

FACTS: Jack and Sparrow are two scientists and they develop a pill that has multiple functions, including radioactive properties. However, they are still experimenting on it, and hence, the pill is stored safely in a glass container, which is kept in their lab. Only Jack and Sparrow have access to the lab. One day, there was an earthquake, measuring 7 on the Richter scale. The effects were felt in the Lab as well. As a result of the quake, the glass container falls and breaks, thereby releasing the capsule, which on reacting with the hydrogen in the air, started shooting sparks and bursts into a flame, releasing gases. William, who lives nearby, hears the commotion in the Lab and goes in to see what is happening. Later, he sues the two scientists, holding them responsible for his exposure to the fumes in the Lab, due to the Pill. Will he succeed?

A) Yes, he suffered due to the escape of the Pill
B) No, it was an Act of God
C) Yes, the two scientists should be held guilty for the tort of negligence and should compensate William
D) No, there was no escape of any fume, and hence, no negligence

Question 9:
PRINCIPLE: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

FACTS: Rohan Agarwal arranged a cocktail for his friends in his farm house. He also arranged it with nice gardens and a swimming pool. The area of the swimming pool was sufficient enclosures. One of the guests, in his inebriated condition, strayed into the area of swimming pool and fell into the pool. He suffered injuries. He filed a suit against Rohan Agarwal for claiming damages.

A) Rohan Agarwal cannot be held liable for the drinking propensities of his friends.
B) Rohan Agarwal as a host would be liable to take care of guests. When they are in his premises.
C) Rohan Agarwal is not liable, because he has invited the guests only for the party and not for the swimming.
D) None of these.

Comment down below to know the correct answers. Subscribe to this course for A-Z of legal aptitude.

Keep watching this space for more on CLAT preparations! Wishing you good luck for the 13th of May.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here