{"id":4450,"date":"2024-03-05T16:06:27","date_gmt":"2024-03-05T16:06:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=4450"},"modified":"2024-03-05T16:06:27","modified_gmt":"2024-03-05T16:06:27","slug":"double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"&#8216;Double possibility rule&#8217; was laid down in which one of the following cases?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\r\n    <!-- Check if it's an AMP page -->\r\n            <!-- Non-AMP version -->\r\n        <div class=\"mcq-container\" data-quiz-id=\"quizState_6a96f6dd95598\">\r\n                                            <div class=\"option\" data-option-key=\"option1\" data-is-correct=\"true\">\r\n                    Whitby Vs. Mitchell                <\/div>\r\n                                            <div class=\"option\" data-option-key=\"option2\" data-is-correct=\"false\">\r\n                    Indu Kakkar Vs. Haryana State                <\/div>\r\n                                            <div class=\"option\" data-option-key=\"option3\" data-is-correct=\"false\">\r\n                    Chamaru Sahu Vs. Soma Kuer                <\/div>\r\n                                            <div class=\"option\" data-option-key=\"option4\" data-is-correct=\"false\">\r\n                    None of these                 <\/div>\r\n                            \r\n            <!-- Feedback messages for non-AMP -->\r\n            <div class=\"feedback\" data-feedback=\"wrong\">Answer is Right!<\/div>\r\n            <div class=\"feedback\" data-feedback=\"right\">Answer is Wrong!<\/div>\r\n        <\/div>\r\n\r\n        <script>\r\n        document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', function () {\r\n            var containers = document.querySelectorAll('.mcq-container');\r\n\r\n            containers.forEach(function(container) {\r\n                var options = container.querySelectorAll('.option');\r\n                var feedbackSelect = container.querySelector('[data-feedback=\"select\"]');\r\n                var feedbackWrong = container.querySelector('[data-feedback=\"wrong\"]');\r\n                var feedbackRight = container.querySelector('[data-feedback=\"right\"]');\r\n\r\n                options.forEach(function(option) {\r\n                    option.addEventListener('click', function() {\r\n                        var selectedOption = option.getAttribute('data-option-key');\r\n                        var isCorrect = option.getAttribute('data-is-correct') === 'true';\r\n\r\n                        \/\/ Remove previous selections\r\n                        options.forEach(function(opt) {\r\n                            opt.classList.remove('correct', 'incorrect');\r\n                        });\r\n\r\n                        \/\/ Add the correct\/incorrect class\r\n                        if (isCorrect) {\r\n                            option.classList.add('correct');\r\n                            feedbackRight.hidden = false;\r\n                            feedbackWrong.hidden = true;\r\n                        } else {\r\n                            option.classList.add('incorrect');\r\n                            feedbackRight.hidden = true;\r\n                            feedbackWrong.hidden = false;\r\n                        }\r\n\r\n                        \/\/ Hide select feedback\r\n                        feedbackSelect.hidden = true;\r\n                    });\r\n                });\r\n            });\r\n        });\r\n        <\/script>\r\n    \r\n    <!--more--><\/p>\n<p>The correct answer is (a).<\/p>\n<p>The double possibility rule was laid down in the case of Whitby v. Mitchell (1890). The rule states that if a person is injured by the negligence of another, they can only recover damages if it is more likely than not that they would not have been injured if the <div class=\"telegram-channel-container\">\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/t.me\/pscnotes2025\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"telegram-channel-button\">\r\n            <span class=\"telegram-icon\">\r\n                <svg xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" viewBox=\"0 0 496 512\">\r\n                    <path fill=\"white\" d=\"M248,8C111,8,0,119,0,256s111,248,248,248s248-111,248-248S385,8,248,8z M362,177L320,367c-3,14-10,18-20,14l-56-41l-27,26 c-3,3-5,5-10,5l4-63L323,196c5-5-1-7-8-3l-98,62l-42-13c-9-3-10-9,2-14l162-63C351,160,365,164,362,177z\"\/>\r\n                <\/svg>\r\n            <\/span>\r\n            Join Our Telegram Channel\r\n        <\/a>\r\n    <\/div> negligence had not occurred.<\/p>\n<p>In the case of Whitby v. <div class=\"youtube-subscribe-container\">\r\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCNHT8lW-JmLC68rjBfZhdkg?sub_confirmation=1\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"youtube-subscribe-button\">\r\n            <span class=\"youtube-icon\">\r\n                <svg xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" viewBox=\"0 0 576 512\">\r\n                    <path d=\"M549.7 124.1c-6.3-23.7-24.8-42.3-48.3-48.6C458.8 64 288 64 288 64S117.2 64 74.6 75.5c-23.5 6.3-42 24.9-48.3 48.6-11.4 42.9-11.4 132.3-11.4 132.3s0 89.4 11.4 132.3c6.3 23.7 24.8 41.5 48.3 47.8C117.2 448 288 448 288 448s170.8 0 213.4-11.5c23.5-6.3 42-24.2 48.3-47.8 11.4-42.9 11.4-132.3 11.4-132.3s0-89.4-11.4-132.3zm-317.5 213.5V175.2l142.7 81.2-142.7 81.2z\"\/>\r\n                <\/svg>\r\n            <\/span>\r\n            Subscribe on YouTube\r\n        <\/a>\r\n    <\/div> Mitchell, the plaintiff was injured when he was hit by a train. He claimed that the train driver was negligent in failing to see him and stop the train. The defendant argued that the plaintiff would have been injured even if the train driver had not been negligent, because he was standing in the middle of the tracks.<\/p>\n<p>The court held that the plaintiff could recover damages, because it was more likely than not that he would not have been injured if the train driver had not been negligent. The court found that the train driver had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid hitting people, and that he had breached that duty by failing to see the plaintiff and stop the train. The court also found that the plaintiff would not have been injured if the train driver had not been negligent, because he would have been able to get out of the way of the train if the train driver had stopped in time.<\/p>\n<p>The double possibility rule is a common law rule that is applied in many jurisdictions. The rule is designed to protect defendants from liability for injuries that would have occurred even if they had not been negligent. The rule is also designed to ensure that plaintiffs only recover damages for injuries that are caused by the negligence of others.<\/p>\n<p>The double possibility rule has been criticized by some legal scholars, who argue that it is too restrictive and that it does not adequately compensate plaintiffs for their injuries. However, the rule remains an important part of the law of negligence, and it is likely to continue to be applied in many jurisdictions.<\/p>\n<p>The other options are incorrect because they do not refer to cases in which the double possibility rule was laid down.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Subscribe on YouTube<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v22.2 (Yoast SEO v23.3) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>&#039;Double possibility rule&#039; was laid down in which one of the following cases?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The double possibility rule was laid down in the case of Whitby v. Mitchell (1890). The rule states that if a person is injured by the negligence of another, they can only recover damages if it is more likely than not that they would not have been injured if the negligence had not occurred.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"&#039;Double possibility rule&#039; was laid down in which one of the following cases?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The double possibility rule was laid down in the case of Whitby v. Mitchell (1890). The rule states that if a person is injured by the negligence of another, they can only recover damages if it is more likely than not that they would not have been injured if the negligence had not occurred.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-03-05T16:06:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"'Double possibility rule' was laid down in which one of the following cases?","description":"The double possibility rule was laid down in the case of Whitby v. Mitchell (1890). The rule states that if a person is injured by the negligence of another, they can only recover damages if it is more likely than not that they would not have been injured if the negligence had not occurred.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"'Double possibility rule' was laid down in which one of the following cases?","og_description":"The double possibility rule was laid down in the case of Whitby v. Mitchell (1890). The rule states that if a person is injured by the negligence of another, they can only recover damages if it is more likely than not that they would not have been injured if the negligence had not occurred.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2024-03-05T16:06:27+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/","name":"'Double possibility rule' was laid down in which one of the following cases?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2024-03-05T16:06:27+00:00","dateModified":"2024-03-05T16:06:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"The double possibility rule was laid down in the case of Whitby v. Mitchell (1890). The rule states that if a person is injured by the negligence of another, they can only recover damages if it is more likely than not that they would not have been injured if the negligence had not occurred.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/double-possibility-rule-was-laid-down-in-which-one-of-the-following-cases\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"mcq","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"law","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/mcq\/law\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"&#8216;Double possibility rule&#8217; was laid down in which one of the following cases?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d97f17072bfa490596c8f78363955d55?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d97f17072bfa490596c8f78363955d55?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4450"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}