In order to discharge the burden of proof placed upon him, it is usually necessary for the plaintiff to prove specific acts or omissions on the part of the defendant which will qualify as negligent conduct. Some times, however, the circumstances are such that the court will be prepared to draw an inference of negligence against the defendant without having detailed evidence of what he did or did not do. This is known as:

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

In which one of the following cases did the Court of Exchequer explain the principle of res ipsa loquitur?

A. Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co.

B. Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners

C. Derry v. Peek

D. Cann v. Willson

Communications addressed by a husband to his wife are not, except with his consent, admissible in evidence by virtue of

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