X and his wife went for shopping leaving behind their dog in their car which they had locked after pulling up the glasses of the windows. For reasons unknown, the dog probably got excited and broke the rear glass, probably with its paws and jumped out. A fragment of the broken glass flew at the face of one Y, a passerby, and pierced into his eye resulting in its loss. Y sued X for damages alleging negligence on the part of X. What defence can X take:

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