X' and 'Y' are on a morning walk with their dogs. 'Y's dog is ferocious. 'Z' is also on a morning walk. The dogs, of 'X' and 'Y' suddenly start fighting and approach 'Z'. Frightened by the dogs, 'Z' tries to step a side and is injured in the process. Consequently:
A. 'Z' can file a suit only against 'X' along as his dog started the light
B. 'Z' can file a suit only against 'Y' as his dog was more ferocious
C. 'Z' can file a suit either against 'Y' or against 'X'
D. 'Z' cannot file a suit against either 'X' or 'Y'
Answer: Option B
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