D left his horse and van unattended in a crowded street and went to see his friend in the adjoining street. While D was away, a dog barked and pounced on the horse. The horse got frightened and started running furiously along the road with the van. P, a pedestrian, saw X in danger of being run over and in order to save him pushed him away, but in doing so, he himself was injured. P sues D for damages:
A. D is liable to pay damages to P
B. D can plead valenti non fit injuria
C. D can take the defence of inevitable accident
D. D can plead novus actus interveniens
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