P, owner of a car, asked his friend Q to drive the car to Bombay where he would join him. As the car was about five kilometers from Bombay it hit a pedestrian R, on account of Q's negligent driving and injured him seriously. R sued P for damages. In this case:
A. P is not liable
B. The liability is solely of Q as P was not accompanying him
C. Since Q was driving P's car, Q was under authority, P is liable
D. P has the defense of inevitable accident
Answer: Option C
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