Necessity: Choosing the Lesser of Two Genuinely Unavoidable Evils Quiz — 5 Free Questions

📖 Read the passage, then answer the questions below

The general exception of necessity permits conduct that would otherwise be unlawful where it is done, in good faith, to avoid or prevent some other, greater harm to person or property, and there was no reasonable alternative available at the time. The rationale is that the law should not punish a person for choosing the lesser of two genuinely unavoidable evils, provided the choice was made honestly and the harm avoided was genuinely greater than the harm caused.

Several conditions must generally be satisfied for the exception to apply. First, the harm sought to be avoided must be imminent and genuinely threatening at the time of the act, not a harm that is merely speculative, distant, or avoidable through some other, less drastic means. Second, the act done must be genuinely necessary to avoid that harm, meaning no reasonable, less harmful alternative was actually available to the person at the time. Third, the harm actually caused by the act must not be disproportionate to, and ideally should be less than, the harm that was genuinely avoided; the exception does not justify causing a greater harm merely to avoid a lesser one. Fourth, the person relying on the exception must have acted in good faith, genuinely believing the act was necessary to avoid the greater harm, rather than using the situation as a pretext for some unrelated, unlawful purpose.

The exception does not apply where a reasonable, less harmful alternative was actually available and the person simply failed to pursue it, nor does it apply where the harm avoided was merely speculative or exaggerated rather than genuinely imminent. It also does not extend to a situation the person themselves deliberately created in order to then claim the exception, since the necessity in such a case is self-manufactured rather than a genuine, externally imposed emergency.

Where the exception genuinely applies, the act, though it would otherwise constitute an offence, is not treated as unlawful, because the law recognises that avoiding a genuinely greater harm through the only reasonably available means, acted upon honestly, does not deserve the condemnation ordinary criminal liability is meant to express.

Question 1

A person claims the necessity exception for causing significant property damage to avoid a harm that, upon closer examination, was merely a distant, speculative possibility rather than a genuine, imminent threat at the time of the act. Is the necessity exception likely to apply here?

Question 2

Which of the following best describes the underlying rationale for the necessity exception, according to the passage?

Question 3

Which of the following is NOT one of the conditions required for the necessity exception to apply, according to the passage?

Question 4

A person, wishing to avoid a legitimate, minor traffic fine for a violation he expects to occur later that day, deliberately creates an emergency by setting a small, controlled fire in his own yard specifically so he can later claim he sped to avoid it, in order to be excused from any resulting traffic charge. Is this person's speeding protected by the necessity exception?

Question 5

A person, genuinely and honestly believing a bridge is about to collapse based on visible, serious structural cracks and shaking, forcibly stops oncoming traffic by damaging a traffic barrier to redirect cars away from the bridge, when no other way to alert drivers in time was reasonably available. The bridge does not, in fact, ultimately collapse. Does the fact that the bridge did not actually collapse defeat the person's claim to the necessity exception?

📚 All Quizzes

Browse every category and see the full list of quizzes on BriskQuiz

→

About Necessity: Choosing the Lesser of Two Genuinely Unavoidable Evils

CLAT's Legal Reasoning section states a legal principle plainly and then tests whether you can apply it to a series of independent, invented fact scenarios -- no prior knowledge of actual criminal law is required, since every answer follows directly from the principle given at the top of this quiz.

This quiz explains the general exception of necessity -- the justification for an otherwise unlawful act done in good faith to avoid a genuinely imminent, greater harm, where no reasonable alternative existed and the harm caused was not disproportionate -- and why it does not extend to a self-manufactured emergency or a merely speculative threat.

The twenty questions attached to it move through the doctrine from every angle CLAT actually tests: scenarios where the exception plainly applies, scenarios that look similar but fail one of its conditions, an Assertion-Reason question, a multi-situation comparison question, and direct recall of the doctrine itself.

Only five of the twenty questions are shown on any single attempt, so replaying this quiz brings a genuinely different set of scenarios rather than the same five memorised by rote.