Principle: An enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding area owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of his activity.
Facts: A poisonous gas leaked from the storage tank of fertilizers manufacturing industry of defendant due to a wind storm resulting in serious breathing problems and eye injuries to 'A' and 'B' who were working in the factory and 'C' and 'D' who were residing in the surrounding area.
A. Defendant is liable to compensate 'A' and 'B' only
B. Defendant is liable to compensate all i.e. 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'
C. Defendant is not liable as leakage occur due to Act of God
D. Defendant is not liable as he was not negligent
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