In which case following facts were given: The defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land which was separated from the plaintiff's colliery by intervening land. Unknown to them beneath the site of the reservoir, there were some disused shafts connecting their land with the plaintiff's mine. The independent contractors were negligent in failing to discover this. Water from the reservoir burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff's mine. The defendants were held personally liable, despite the absence of blame in themselves
A. Charring Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co.
B. Rylands v. Fletcher
C. Smith v. Scott
D. None of the above
Answer: Option B
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