A nine year old boy bought petrol in a Can from the defendant, a petrol dealer by falsely stating that his mother needed it for her car. In fact, he used it to play with it, and, in doing so, sustained bum injuries. The defendant is:
A. Liable in negligence for supplying petrol to so young a boy who was not expected to know the properties of petrol
B. Not liable in negligence as the boy had made a false statement and the defendant believed it to be true
C. There was contributory negligence of the boy, therefore defendant is not liable
D. Not liable in negligence because possession of the Can and money proved that boy acted as a reasonable person
Answer: Option A
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