ExamVeda
Login
Home

A railway company was authorised by law to run railway trains...

This question belongs to Law Law Of Torts
Law of Torts
?

A railway company was authorised by law to run railway trains on a track. The sparks from the engine set fire to the adjoining property belonging to the plaintiff. Which one of the following defences will be most appropriate for the defendant to raise in action for nuisance by the plaintiff?

Answer & Solution
Correct Answer: Option C
Let's discuss the solution. Join the discussion
Examveda
Question posted by Examveda
Community

Join the Discussion

No comments yet Be the first to discuss this question.
Keep Learning

Related Questions on 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
In which one of the following cases did the Court of Exchequer explain the principle of res ipsa loquitur?
A. Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co. B. Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners C. Derry v. Peek D. Cann v. Willson
Communications addressed by a husband to his wife are not, except with his consent, admissible in evidence by virtue of
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
More Related Questions on Law of Torts