X, a mill owner, employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir for his mill. During the course of construction the contractors came upon some old shafts and passages on the land of X. The contractors did not block them. When the reservior was filed, water burst through the old shafts and flooded the mines of 'Y'. 'Y' sued 'X'. 'X' was held liable. He could have not been liable if he could show that
A. He was not negligent
B. The liability lay with the contractor who were known to be competent contractors
C. Escape was owing to palintiff's default
D. All the above
Answer: Option C
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