Principle: A principal is vicariously liable for the tort of his agent committed within the course of his authority.
Facts: 'A', who was about to compete in a car raliy, asked his friend, 'B', to drive his A's car from Delhi to Chandigarh so as to meet 'A' there at the end of the rally. 'B' was to bring in the car a suitcase for 'A', and, after the rally, they were both to take the car and go to Shimla. 'B' departed from Delhi but, before reaching Chandigarh, negligently collided with plaintiffs car which was damaged. Plaintiff claimed damages from 'A' and 'B'.
A. Only 'A' can be held liable as he is the owner of the car
B. Only 'B' can be held liable as he was driving the car
C. Neither 'A' nor 'B' can be held liable
D. Both 'A' and 'B' can be held liable as 'B' was using the car for 'A's purpose
Answer: Option D
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