Match List-I (Name of case) with List-II (Decision of case) by using below:
| List I (Name of case) | List II (Decision of cases) |
| a. Manju Bhatia v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation | 1. Liability of owner of tree for an injury caused by its falling |
| b. Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Sushiia Devi | 2. Legal duty of Railway to assure reasonable safety at railway level crossing |
| c. Union of India v. Lalman | 3. Teacher's duty of case towards children when they are taken out on a picnic for fun and swim |
| d. M. S. Grewal v. Deepchand Sood | 4. Liability of builder towards purchasers of flats |
A. a-2, b-1, c-3, d-4
B. a-1, b-2, c-4, d-3
C. a-3, b-4, c-1, d-2
D. a-4, b-1, c-2, d-3
Answer: Option D
This Question Belongs to Law >> Law Of Torts
Join The Discussion
Comments (1)
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
In the matter of Union of India V Lalman the issue was regarding "grant of compassionate allowance" and there was no issue regarding "safety at level crossing". Kindly look into the same and reconsider correcting the question please.
Regards
Tilak Singh V
tilaksinghv@gmail.com