B' was under the regular employment of 'A' as a driver of his mobile crane. He let the crane together with 'B' as driver to 'C'. In the course of loading a ship, 'X' was injured by negligent working of the crane by 'B'. At the time of the accident 'C' had the immediate control and direction of the operations to be executed. The working of the crane and the manipulation of its control, however, remained with 'B', In a suit by 'X' against 'C', is:
A. Not liable because 'B' was the regular servant of 'A' and not of 'C'
B. Liable because 'C' was controlling and directing the operation to executed at the time of the accident
C. Not liable because the services of 'B' were of a highly skilled character and 'C' could not direct how 'B' should work the crane
D. Liable because there was a relationship of master and servant between 'B' and 'C' at the time of the accident
Answer: Option C
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