P telephones a gas company to checkup some leakage in his gas pipeline. The gas company sends two of its employees, A and B for the purpose. B lights a match stick to detect the leakage, but it causes an explosion resulting in considerable damage to the house. P sues A and B. A pleads that he is not guilty as he did not light the match stick. Which of the following is correct?
A. A is not liable
B. The gas company alone is liable
C. A is equally liable as he is a joint tort-feasor
D. B alone can be made liable
Answer: Option C
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
Sir,
It appears that there has been a small mess up in framing the question. There are two possibilities namely, one vicarious liability of employer and the other one is joint tort feasors when two individuals are working together on their own. Following cases will clarify the situation:
In Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) (Folemis Case)
The defendant stevedore's employees were loading cargo into a ship. An employee negligently caused a plank to fall into the ship's hold. The plank caused a spark, which ignited some petrol vapour in the hold, causing an explosion that resulted in the ship becoming a total loss.
The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are.
Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board, in which a petrol lorry driver tried to light a cigarette with a lit match while in a petrol station. After throwing the lit match onto the floor, there was an explosion and a fire. The employers were held liable, as the driver did the act in the course of carrying out his job of delivering the petrol. It was, however, an unauthorised way of doing what he was employed to do, but the employers were still vicariously liable for the damage caused.
In Brook v. Bool, A and B entered Z’s premises to search for an escape of gas. Each one of them, in turn, applied damage to Z’s premises in this case, even though the act of A alone had caused the explosion, but both A and B were considered to be joint tortfeasors and thus held liable for the damage.
Please look into the above and consider modifying the question or the suggested answer.
Regards