After flood, floor of a factory became slippery as some oily substance got mixed with water. The owners of the factory (defendants) took steps to get rid of the effects of flood and spread all the sawdust available with them on floor. But some oily patches remained uncovered due to lack of further supply of sawdust. A, a worker in the factory (plaintiff), slipped from one of such oily patches. He sues the defendants for damages. Which of the following is correct?
A. Defendants are not guilty of negligence
B. Defendants are negligent as they should have closed down the factory until risk disappeared
C. Plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence
D. Defendants have defence of valenti non fit injuria
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