ExamVeda
Login
Home

Two dogs belonging to two different owners acting in concert attacked...

This question belongs to Law Law Of Torts
Law of Torts
?

Two dogs belonging to two different owners acting in concert attacked a flock of sheep and injured several sheep. In an action for damages brought against the owners of the dogs, if one of them put in defence claiming that he was liable for one-half only of the damage, then which one of the following statements is legally sustainable in the above case?

Answer & Solution
Correct Answer: Option A
Let's discuss the solution. Join the discussion
Examveda
Question posted by Examveda
Community

Join the Discussion

No comments yet Be the first to discuss this question.
Keep Learning

Related Questions on 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
In which one of the following cases did the Court of Exchequer explain the principle of res ipsa loquitur?
A. Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co. B. Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners C. Derry v. Peek D. Cann v. Willson
Communications addressed by a husband to his wife are not, except with his consent, admissible in evidence by virtue of
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
More Related Questions on Law of Torts