An army truck driven by an army driver while going to leave army jawans on the station for enabling them to catch their home town, hit a pedestrian and killed him due to rash and negligent driving. Which one of the following is correct?
A. In this case vicarious liability is to be imposed on the Government of India
B. In this case vicarious liability would be claimed under the defence of sovereign functions of the State
C. In this case no liability will be imposed under the defence of inevitable accident
D. In this case both Government of India and the drive personally would be liable
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