A transport company issued a circular to all its drivers that they should not compete or obstruct other buses plying in the route. Driver A, in contravention of the express prohibition, obstructed another bus and while doing so met with an accident in which B was injured.
A. The company is not liable as it had expressly prohibited the drivers from competing and obstructing other buses
B. The company is liable as the accident happened in the course of employment
C. The company is not liable because the driver had disobeyed the company's instructions and thereby acted outside the course of employment
D. The company is not liable because the driver had not acted for the benefit of the employer, the company
Answer: Option B
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