The plaintiff, a lady visitor to a restaurant, was injured by the ceiling fan which fell on her. The reason for the falling of the fan was a latent defect in the metal of the suspension rod of the fan. In an action against the defendant, he is:
A. Not liable because they injury was not foreseeable
B. Liable because the injury was foreseeable
C. Liable because of the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur'
D. Liable because of the last opportunity rule
Answer: Option A
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