A University has given a contract to Engineers Co. (P) Ltd. to construct its Campus Building. The company engages sub-contractors; One of the sub-contractors engages one hundred workers on rate- contract basis, A being one of them. The University Engineering Department has reserved the right of inspection and advising accordingly. A, while working on the structure, negligently has a fall fracturing his legs that confines him for six months. A is entitled to compensation from:
In Smith v. Baker, the plaintiff, a servant of the defendants, Railway contractors, was employed in drilling holes in a rock cutting, and was aware of the danger caused by a crane continually swinging crates of stone above his head. A stone fell out of a crate and injured him. He brought an action of negligence against the defendants who pleaded volenti non fit injuria. It was held that
A took an electric tandoor from B & Co. on rent. In the rent agreement there was a clause to the effect that the Co. shall not be liable for any personal injury to the hirer or to any other person while using it. However, due to defect in tandoor, a cook was injured. The cook brought an action against B & Co.
C, a stranger blocked the water pipes of a wash-basin and opened the tap. The wash-basin was otherwise in the control of the defendant B. The overflowing water damaged the plaintiff goods. Thereupon the plaintiff filed a suit for damages against the defendant B. C was not made a party.
In the aforesaid suit which one of the following conclusions is correct?
The defendants by digging a coalpit in the land intercepted the water which affected the plaintiffs well at a distance of about one mile. The plaintiff brought a suit for a damages against the defendants.
Which one of the following maxims is applicable in the aforesaid case?