The defendant wrongfully enclosed a part of the public footway on Hammersmith Bridge, put seats in it for the use of spectators of a regatta on the river and charged for admission to the enclosure. The plaintiff insisted on passing along this part of the foot path and climbed over the fence of the enclosure without paying the charge. The defendant refused to let him go forward, but he was told that he might go back into the carriage way and cross the other side of the bridge if he wished. If the plaintiff declined to do so and remained in the enclosure for half and hour, then the:
A. Plaintiff was entitled to damages
B. Plaintiff committed civil trespass
C. Defendant committed false imprisonment
D. Defendant did not commit false imprisonment
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