In Smith v. Baker, the plaintiff, a servant of the defendants, Railway contractors, was employed in drilling holes in a rock cutting, and was aware of the danger caused by a crane continually swinging crates of stone above his head. A stone fell out of a crate and injured him. He brought an action of negligence against the defendants who pleaded volenti non fit injuria. It was held that
A. The plaintiff's knowledge of the risk justified that he had voluntarily undertaken it
B. The employers were not negligent in not warning the plaintiff of the recurring danger
C. Knowledge on the part of the plaintiff of the risk implied assumption of it
D. None of the above
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