A, though involved in a motor accident, remained physically unhurt but suffered Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, a psychiatric illness with which he had earlier suffered but which was then in remission. He claimed damages from the driver of the motor car. Will he succeed?
A. No, this illness was not foreseeable in a person of normal health
B. No, he has not suffered any physical injury
C. Yes, he has suffered injuries by shock
D. Yes, though this illness was not foreseeable but some physical harm was foreseeable
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