The defendants, employees of the Municipal Corporation opened a main hole in the street and in the evening left the mainhole open and covered it by a canvas shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight year old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there,when he stumbled over it and it fell into the mainhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff sustained bum injuries. The defendants are:
A. Not liable because injury to the plaintiff is not foreseeable
B. Liable because they should have completed the work before they left
C. Not liable because they acted reasonably
D. Liable because injury resulted from a known source of danger even though through an unforeseeable sequence of events
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