Due to negligence of railway authorities, there was a major train accident. On hearing and seeing the news of the accident on TV, mother of one of the passengers travelling in the train sustained severe shock resulting in heart attack. She claimed damages from the railways for the shock she sustained. Which one of the following is the correct statement? Railway authority is not liable as:
A. She was not directly involved in the accident
B. She was not travelling in the train
C. She cannot prove negligence of the railway authorities
D. There exist no direct relation in term of time and space between the accident and the shock she sustained
Answer: Option D
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