Principle: General rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence of the defendant. But if the thing causing the injury is under the control of defendant and injury is such as would not occur without negligence, law presumes negligence.
Facts: While performing a surgery for the removal of stones from the kidney of 'A', Dr. 'B' left a mop inside the body of 'A'. 'A' suffered acute pain and has to be operated again for the removal of the mop.
'A' sues Dr. 'B' for damages.
A. 'A' will not succeed as he has consented to the surgery
B. Dr. 'B' is liable for all the injuries suffered during surgery
C. Dr. 'B' is liable as leaving a mop inside the body during surgery raised a presumption of negligence on his part
D. 'A' will not succeed as he can not prove the negligence of Dr. 'B' in performing the surgery
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