Law Of Torts - Study Mode
[#406] The rule of strict liability as laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher was propounded by:-
Correct Answer
(B) Blackburn
[#407] Principle: An occupier or owner of land owes a duty to warn a suspected trespasser of deadly conditions on the land which would be hidden to a trespasser, but of which the property owner is aware. Factual Situation: Shiva, the owner of a Fire Cracker Factory owned a large plot of land, which he used for testing his crackers. One day while he was about to set fire to some special crackers, he noticed some children wandering on his land. Shiva did not pay any attention to the children as according to him they were trespassers. He set fire to the test crackers. One of the crackers which was supposed to ignite a series of crackers up in the sky at a height of 100 metres, did not burst in the sky. Instead, it fell to the ground and exploded, injuring one of the children. In a suit for compensation initiated by the parents of the injured child, how would you decide?
Correct Answer
(C) Shiva is liable as he did not give any warning to the children about any danger
[#408] Fair comment is a recognized defence against a suit for defamation. It is essential that
Correct Answer
(D) All of the above
[#409] Which of the following statement is correct:
Correct Answer
(B) Under the law of torts, when two or more persons confine without lawful justification for the pupose of causing damage to the other and their act results in damage it is actionable conspiracy
[#410] The rule of 'strict liability' propounded in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher is not applicable:
Correct Answer
(D) All the above