The driver of a bus belonging to the defendant permitted the conductor to drive the bus. The conductor drove negligently causing accident resulting in injuries to the plaintiff. The defendant would be:
A. Liable because as master of the conductor the defendant would be vicariously liable for the conductor's negligence
B. Not liable because the driver by permitting the conductor to drive had done an unauthorised act for which his master the defendant, could not be held liable
C. Liable because permission given by driver to the conductors to driver was a negligent act of the driver for which his master, the defendant, would be liable
D. Not liable because the driver by not driving and the conductor by driving were both acting unauthorisedly for which their master, the defendant, could not be held liable
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