A and B, unknown to D, sought and got a lift in D's car, but on account of some mechanical defect in the car, of which D was not aware, one of the front wheels of the car got detached and flew away and the car turned turtle. A and B suffered serious injuries and later A, died of his injuries. B and A's next of kin sued D for damages for negligent driving. What defence does D have?
A. Valenti non fit injuria
B. Contributory negligence
C. Inevitable accident
D. No responsibility towards A and B, who got a free lift
Answer: Option C
The 'tort of intimidation' was propounded in
A. Winterbottom v. Wright
B. Pasley v. Freeman
C. Winsmore v. Greenbank
D. Rookes v. Barnard
The maxim 'scienti non fit injuria' means
A. Where there is no fault, there is no remedy
B. Mere knowledge does not imply consent to take risk
C. Mere giving consent does not imply to take risk
D. Scientific knowledge is not enough to cause injury
A. Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co.
B. Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners
C. Derry v. Peek
D. Cann v. Willson
A. Section 82 of the Evidence Act
B. Section 102 of the Evidence Act
C. Section 122 of the Evidence Act
D. Section 124 of the Evidence Act
Join The Discussion