An army truck driven by an army driver, while going to check the armymen on duties, hit X, a pedestrian, and injured him seriously on account of rash and negligent driving. M sued the Government of India. The defence was a sovereign functions.

A. Winterbottom v. Wright B. Pasley v. Freeman C. Winsmore v. Greenbank D. Rookes v. Barnard

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