A' is the owner of a furniture shop and 'B' is employed in that shop as a delivery-man. In which of the following cases, 'A' would be liable in a suit filed by the injured plaintiff 'C' for the action of 'B'?
Case 1. One day, 'B' was on his delivery route when he met his friend 'D'. 'D' requested 'B' to drop him at the railway station as he was getting late for the train. 'B' drove very fast and while returning back from the railway station, 'B' negligently ran over 'C'.
Case 2. One day, 'B' was on his delivery route when he met 'D'. As both had met after long time, 'B' decided to have lunch with his friend 'D'. 'B' drove out of his way to a nearby restaurant and had lunch there. While driving back from there, 'B' negligently ran over 'C'.
A. 'A' is liable in both cases
B. 'A' is not at all liable
C. 'A' is liable only in Case 1
D. 'A' is liable only in Case 2
Answer: Option D
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