Due to the negligence of the owners of a well, it was filled with poisonous gases and two of the employees were trapped inside the well. B, an expert in disaster management in such situation, was called to rescue the two employees. B decided to go inside the well with the help of a rope in order to save the employees trapped in the well. He was warned of the risk involved. Despite all this B went inside the well and was overcome by the gases. He was taken to hospital where he died. B's wife sued the owners of the well for compensation.
UGC NET - 2013,
Answer: C
The owners are liable because B's act was the natural and probable consequence of the owners' negligent act.
Under the rescue doctrine, a person who is hurt in attempting to rescue others put in danger by the defendant's negligence can sue the defendant. The rescue is a foreseeable result of the negligence and is not an independent act. The maxim volenti non fit injuria does not apply to a rescuer, since he acts under the pressure of the danger created by the defendant, and not voluntarily accepting the risk.
That B was an expert, or that he was warned, does not change the result. Liability does not rest on B being engaged by the owners.
Please log in or register to report this question.