A boy, playing on the road, was about to be run over by a taxicab. The driver, however, applied the breaks and brought the cab to a screeching halt and the boy was slightly injured. The mother of the boy who happened to watch the same from her house at a distance of 100 meters from the sight, suffered a nervous shock. The driver is:
A. Not liable, because he does not owe a duty of care to the mother
B. Liable for the nervous shock since it is the direct consequence of his act
C. Liable, because he owed a duty of care to the mother
D. Not liable, because the damage is not reasonably foreseeable
Answer: Option C
This Question Belongs to Law >> Law Of Torts
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