Cases in Tort.

(Midsems)

1) Jay Laxmi Salt Case 3

2) MCD vs. Subhagwanti 3
3) Town Area Committee vs Prabhu Dayal 3
4) Ashby vs. White and Other 3
5) White vs John Warrick and Co. ltd 4
6) Burnard vs Haggis 4
7) Jenning vs Rundall 4
8) Varghese vs Varghese 4
9) Merryweather vs Nixon 4
10) Moon vs Towers 4
11) Bebee vs Sales 4
12) Donaldson vs MC Niven 4
13) Rohtas Industries case 4
14) Tiru Veriamuthu Pillai vs Municipal Council 5
15) Lucknow Development Authority vs MK Gupta 5
16) Abrath vs Eastern Railway Co 5
17) Citizens life Assurance Company vs Brown 5
18) Borton vs London & South West Railway co. 5
19) El Joue vs Dollar land holdings 5
20) Campbell vs Padington Corp 5
21) Lala Vishambharnath vs Agra Municipal Corp 6
22) Donoghue vs Stevenson 6
23) Hedley Byrne & Co ltd vs Heller & Partners limited 6
24) Home Office vs Dorset Yacht Co ltd 6
25) Anns vs London Borough of Merton 7
26) Governors of Peabody Donation Fund vs Sir Lindsay 7
27) Curran vs Northern Island Co-ownership Housing Association 7
28) Yuen Keun Yen vs Attorney General of Hong Kong 8
29) David vs Radcliffe 8
30) Pramod Malhotra vs UOI 8
31) Hill vs Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 9
32) Caparo Industries vs Dickman 9
33) Junior Books vs Veitchi Co ltdBef 9
34) Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Co vs Basanti Bai 9
35) Bourhill vs Young 10
36) Murphy vs Brentwood District Council 10
37) Stovin vs Wise 10
38) Union of India vs United India Insurance 10
39) Rajkot Municipal Corp vs Manjulaben 11
40) Kent vs Griffith 11
41) P Perl Exporters Limited vs Corden London Borough 11
42) King vs Liverpool city council 11
43) Smith vs Littlewoods 11
44) Sutradhar vs UK HL case 12
 45) Uphaar Association case 12
46) Roops vs Barnard 12
47) Goodwill vs British Pregnancy Advisory Company 12
48) Santara case 12
49) Latimer vs AEC 12
50) Klaus vs East India Hotel 12
51) Hall vs Brooklands 12
52) Achut Rao Khodwa vs State of Maharashtra 12
53) Smith vs Baker 13
54) Dann vs Hamilton 13
55) Alka vs UOI 13
56) Haynes vs Harwood 13
57) Cutler vs United Daires London limited 14
58) Reeves vs Commissioner of Police of Metropolis 14
59) South Indian Industries case 14
60) Sidaway vs Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and 14
61) Janaki S Kumar vs Mrs Sarfumia 14
62) Samira Kohli vs Prabha Manchanda 14
63) Jacob Mathew 14
64) State of Bihar v SK Mukherjee 15
65) Roshwell vs chemical and insulating company 15
66) Glasgow Corp v Taylor 15
67) White vs Jones 15

1) ​Jay Laxmi Salt Case

2) MCD vs. Subhagwanti

A clock tower collapsed killing many people. Structure was 80 years old, although normal life
is 40 years. It was under the maintenance of MCD
● .MCD was held liable
● It owed a duty of care to the general public and was negligent in maintaining the
tower, by not getting periodic checks done on the tower and repairing it.

3) Town Area Committee vs Prabhu Dayal

Plaintiff constructed shops on old foundations of a building without complying with the rules
of the UP Municipalities Act, so the Town Area Committee demolished it. Plaintiff alleged
that the demolition was illegal as the committee officers were acting out of malicious
intention.
● Demolition was held lawful.
 ● Damnum Sine Injuria - Although there was damage, legal right of plaintiff was not
violated as construction was illegal
● Since the demolition is legal, it does not matter whether or not it was driven by mala
fide intention

4) Ashby vs. White and Other

Plaintiff was a qualified voter at the election, but the returning officer refused to take his vot.
Eventually No loss was suffered as the plaintiff’s preferred candidate won.
● Defendant was held liable
● Injuria sine Damnum - ​Although there was no damage, there was a violation of the
plaintiff’s legal right

5) White vs John Warrick and Co. ltd

Plaintiff hired a cycle from the defendants. The written agreement stated that
"Nothing in this agreement shall render the owners liable for any personal injury".
While the plaintiff was riding the cycle, the defective saddle tilted forward and he was
injured.
● Defendant not liable for contractual liability due to clause
● Held liable for tort of supplying defective machine

6) Burna​​rd vs Haggis
Minor hired horse from Haggis on the “Express condition that it would be used only for riding,
not for jumping. Minor lent the mare to a friend, who made it jump over a fence. The mare
was impaled on it and killed.
● Minor not liable for breach of contract
● But liable for tort of trespass of property by lending to friend, as minor cant be
absolved for tortious liability

7) Jenning vs Rundall
Minor hired a mareto ride and injured it by overriding
8) Minor was not liable for breach of contract
9) Contract with minor is void ab intio
10) The BOC can’t be altered into tort of negligence

11)Varghese vs Vargh​​ese
 12)Merryweather vs ​Nixon
When wrongdoers jointly commit wrongful act, one wrongdoer can’t take action against the
other for his contribution
- Personal capacity husband and wife

13) Moon vs Tow​​ers

14) Bebee vs Sales

Father supplied his 15 year old son with an airgun, and allowed it to remain with him despite
complaints of the son’s mischeivous use of the airgun. The boy accidentally wounded the
plaintiff.
● Father was held liable
● He negligently afforded his child an opportunity to commit a tort.

15) Donaldson vs MC Niven

Father

16)Rohtas Industries case

Workers went on strike, which resuted in loss for the company, who then sued their
employees for the same
● Workers not liable
● No action in torts for strikes
17)Tiru Veriamuthu Pillai vs Municipal Council
Plaintiff’s dog was killed by employee of muncipal council while discharging function of killing
stray dogs
● Council is liable
● Can’t be argued that the council didn’t authorize workers to kill pet dogs.
● Immunity can’t be claimed by corporation just because act is ultra vires

18)Lucknow Development Authority vs MK ​Gupta

- Consumer should be protected against services from statutory bodies
 19)Abrath vs Eastern Railway Co
Dr Abrath was prosecuted for issue of fake certificate to passenger, but he was later
acquitted. He sued railways for malicious prosecution.
● Railways not liable.
● In malicious prosecution, motive is an essential ingredient. However, a corporation
cannot be attributed a motive as it has no mind of its own.

20)Citizens life Assurance Company vs Brown

Superior employee of a company issued a circular with malicious libel.
● Company was held vicariously liable.
● Company liable for acts of servant
● Since companies are recognised as legal persons, they are liable to have the mental
states of agents and employees such as dishonesty or malice attributed to them for the
purpose of establishing civil liability.

21) Borton vs London & South West Railw​​ay co.

22)El Joue vs Dollar land holdi​​ngs

Corp has a mind and will like a natural person as its made of a grp of officers etc who have
the mind to direct the management. So company is liable for the wrongs of malice and fraud.
So company can be sued for any malicious or fraudulent activities.

23)Campbell vs Padington Corp

During funeral procession of Edward 7, plaintiff wanted to make profit by charging people for
using seats in her house to view the procession. However, a metropolitan borough, after a
formal resoltion within its council, erected a stand in the highway for council members to
view the procession, which was a public nuisance. It also obstructed the view from the
plaintiff’s house, so she could not make the profits. She sued for tort of private nuisance, as
the corporation had interfered with her use and enjoyment of her land.
● Corporation was held liable.
● It was argued that the corporation had no authority to construct the stand, and that
the same had been ​ultra vires​ done by the council
● However, the only way a corporation acts is via its council. Since the stand was
erected after formal resolution of the borough council, it is considered as being done
by the corporation.
● Corporation can be made liable for both i​ntra vires​ and ​ultra vires​ acts.
 24)Lala Vishambharnath vs Agra Munic​​ipal Corp
Inferior quality of wheat was given for animal consumption. This was prohibited by the
Magistrate as it was unfit for consumption and a threat to public health. Filed case against
MC.

25) Donoghue vs Stevenson

Plaintiff consumed ginger beer purchased by her friend. She suffered stomach ache
on consuming part of it. Bottle contained decomposed remains of snail which could
not be seen through the opaque container.
● Manufacturer was held liable.
● Since he intended for the consumer to consume it as it is, he owed a duty of
care to the consumer.

26)Hedley Byrne & Co ltd vs Heller & Partners limited

Before engaging in a contract with Easipower Ltd, an advertising agency asked their bankers
to ascertain Easipower’s financial position from Easipower’s bankers. Easipower’s bankers
stated that they were in a good position, but also absolved themselves of any responsibility
for the statement. Relying on the statement, the agency contracted with Easipower, but
subsequently suffered huge damages as Easipower went into liquidation. Agency sued
Easipower’s bankers.
● The bankers were giving specialised advice to the agency. Hence they owed a duty
of care to apply ordinary skill while providing the service, even if there was no
contract between the bankers and the agency. Hence the bankers had been
negligent in issuing the statement, and there was a breach of duty.
● However,in this case, the don’t have to pay compensation as they had protected
themselves by issuing a disclaimer in the beginning.

27)Home Office vs Dorset Yacht Co ltd

Borstal officers were negligent in supervising their trainees, who then escaped and
caused damage to a yacht.
● The officers were held liable
● They ought to have foreseen that this would happen if they failed to excercise
proper control and supervision over the trainees, so they owed prima facie
duty of care to the owner of the yacht.
 28)Anns vs London Borough of Merton
Structural Movements caused cracking in the floors and sloping of the walls of a flat.
The lessees of the apartment sued the local authority ie the Borough Council for
failing to inspect the foundation before construction. As per bye-laws of the Public
Health Act, the Borough council is enabled to supervise construction and foundation
of buildings.
● Council was held liable as there was economic loss
● At that time economic damage held the party liable for compensation. This
was later overruled in Caparo and Murphy.
● Established 2 stage test - foreseeability and proximity

29)Governors of Peabody Donation Fund vs Sir Lindsay

Approved plan for the drainage system of a building was not followed. Although the
local authorities came to know of this, they took no action. Later, the drainage
system failed and had to be reconstructed. Building owners sued the authorities
alleging that they had a duty to ensure that the drainage was built as per the
approved plan.
● Local authorities were not held liable
● Their duty is only to safeguard the building occupiers and general public
against any health risks that might arise from the faulty drainage installation
● No duty to safeguard building owners from any loss arising due to
non-compliance with approved plans.

30)Curran vs Northern Island Co-ownership Housing Association

Plaintiff's predecessor built an extension to a house using a grant given by the Housing
Executive. As per the Housing order, the work was supposed to meet the Executive’s
requirements. After purchase, the plaintiff realised that the construction was defective and
did not comply with Exec’s standards, and had to be rebuilt at huge costs. Plaintiff alleged
that Exec wa negligent in permitting the extension to be built defectively.
● Exec was not liable ​( Following Anns and Peabody Donation fund)
● Exec has no control over building operations once grant is approved
● So can’t impose duty of care on Exec
 31)Yuen Kum Yen vs Attorney General of Hong Kong
Plaintiffs invested their money in a deposit taking company which was run fraudulently and
speculatively. It later collapsed and wound up. Plaintiffs alleged that the Commissioner for
Deposit-taking Companies, who had regulatory power wrt registration of companies, was
negligent.
● Commissioner was not liable
● Although it was reasonably foreseeable that allowing such a company to run would
result in losses for the depositors
● Duty of care can’t be imposed as no direct proximity b/w com and prospective
depositors

32)Davis vs Radcliffe
A bank failed, causing loss of deposits to the depositors. The Treasurer and
Finance Board were sued, as they had licensing and regulatory powers over the
bank under the Banking Act 1975.
● No liability
● Foreseeability of damage alone is not sufficient to establish liability, its
necessary to establish proximity. No proximity b/w depositors and treasurer
● (Similar to Yuen Kum Yen)

33)Pramod Malhotra vs UOI

RBI granted SBL license to open a branch in Delhi, despite inspection showing that it
had various shortcomings. Under the Amalgamation Scheme of SBL with UBI, the
depositors were only allowed 9.037% of deposits, due to the poor financial situation
of SBL. Depositors sued RBI.
● RBI not liable
● Although foreseeability is there, Since relationship between RBI and
depositors not sufficiently proximate to impose liability of negligence.

34)Hill vs Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

A man committed a number of murders. The mother of the last victim sued the Chief
Constable for negligence. The criminal was not caught earlier due to many mistakes
in the investigation of earlier offences.
 ● Police not liable
● No duty of care to general public to identify and apprehend an unknown
criminal, even if it can be reasonably foreseen that not doing so would cause
harm.
● Foreseeability is not sufficient test for liability, proximity needs to be
established. But no proximity to individual members of the public.

35)Caparo Industries vs Dickman

Caparo bought shares in a company, relying on a report that affirmed the company’s profit,
when in reality the company had losses. Caparo sued auditors for misrepresentation.
● Auditors not liable
● Establishes 3 stage test -
● Although damage was foreseeable
● So no duty for auditors

36)Junior Books vs Veitchi Co ltd

Defendants were sub-contractors. They were contracted to do the flooring of a factory. But
the floor developed cracks in a few years
● Defendants are liable
● There was economic damage (to fix the cracks)
● Damage caused was direct and foreseeable
● Contractors owed a duty of care as owners relied on their specialised skill
● There is sufficient proximity b/w the parties
● (Follows Anns principle)

37)Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Co vs Basanti Bai

There was a communal riot in the city and the local authorities had promulgated
curfew order to ensure safety of the citizens. During this period, a driver was going
to his place of employment early morning, and was stabbed on his way. It was
alleged that the employer had a duty to take care of drivers safety and had failed to
excercise it.
● Employer was held liable
● Normally, employer owes no duty of care to for safety of employee while
employee is proceeding to his place of employment.
 ● However circumstances were unusual. The state of violence in the city and
the consequent curfew order shows that being outside was perilous.
● In such a situation, it is foreeable that the employee is likely to get injured if
adequate measures were not taken for his safety. Hence the employer hd a
duty to arrange for the same

38)Bourhill vs Young
. A negligent motor cyclist had been killed, and there was a pool of blood on the road. A
pregnant lady suffered nervous shock on seeing the blood and gave birth to a stillborn child.
She sued the personal representatives of the deceased motorcyclist.
● Deceased motorcyclist or representatives not liable
● Injury could not have been foreseen
● No duty of of care is owed to the lady

39)Murphy vs Brentwood District Council

Council approved the plan of a building with defective foundation, resulting in damaged
piping, which diminished the resale value for the house. The first buyer of the building sued
Council for negligence.
● Council not liable
● No compensation for pure economic loss (​Overruled Anns which said that economic
loss was sufficient for suit)

40)Stovin vs Wise
Motor Accident happened because view was obstructed by earthbank on the side of the
road. Local highway authority had discretion to remove the bank and was sued for not doing
so.
● Authority not liable
● … The conditions ​that make one liable for not exercising statutory power are not met
○ It was irrational to not have exercised power
○ Persons who suffered loss in this case were entitled to compensation

41)Union of India vs United India Insurance

Train had collided with a bus at unmanned level crossing
● UII owning railway was liable
● It had duty to man the level crossing, given the traffic, and also to provide proper
signboard, which it did not
 ● In this case, ​unlike Stovin​, both conditions that make one liable for not exercising
statutory power are met
○ It was irrational to not have exercised power
○ Persons who suffered loss in this case were entitled to compensation

42)Rajkot Municipal Corp vs Manjulaben

Roadside tree fell and injured plaintiff’s husband.
● RMC not liable
● Not reasonable to expect RMC o constantly test health conditions of trees in public
place
● Hence no duty to maintain roadside trees to prevent them from falling

43)Kent vs Griffith
Plaintiff was pregnant and had asthma. Ambulance was dialled on emergency, call was
accepted and told that it will arrive soon. But it took 40 mins to arrive, and because of delay,
she suffered respiratory arrest and miscarriage.
● Ambulance service is liable
● Injuries were caused due to delay.
● If wrong info regarding arrival wasn’t given alternate transportation could have been
arranged
● Ambulance had duty of care to immediately send ambulance by accepting the call,
which was breached.

44)P Perl Exporters Limited vs Corden London Borough

Plaintiff and defendant shared adjoining flats. Thieves entered defendant’s unoccupied flat,
bored a hole through common wall and robbed plaintiff’s flat. Defendant had taken no
security measures despite other flats having been robbed previously.
● Defendant not liable
● Does not owe duty of care to plaintiff to prevent entry of thieves from their flat.

45)King vs Liverpool city council

Flat above the plaintiff was unoccupied, and vandals disrupted water system, causing
plaintiff’s flat to be flooded. This continued even after measures taken by council.
● Council not held liable
● Council had already taken reasonable steps from keeping away vandals
● Not possible for them to practically keep them away
● Didn’t owe duty of care to plaintiff
 46)Smith vs Littlewoods
Purchasers of a cinema closed it down and left it unattended, and trespassing children
started a fire in it which spread to other properties.
● Purchasers not liable
● Owed a duty to not endanger adjoining properties
● But act of children was not foreseeable

47) Sutradhar vs UK HL ​case

48) Uphaar Association c​​as​​e

49) Roops vs Ba​​rnard

50) Goodwill vs British Pregnancy Advisory Co​​mpany

51) Santara c​​ase

52)Latimer vs AEC
Heavy rainstorm flooded the respondent’s factory with water. Some oily substance got mixed
up with the water. The oil remained on the floor even after the water drained away making
the floor slippery. Respondent spread all available sawdust on the floor to get rid of the oil,
although some areas remained uncovered. An employee slipped on one such oily patch and
was injured. He sued respondent for negligence, and contended that factory should be
closed as precaution until all danger had ceased.
● Respondent was not liable
● He had exercised reasonable care in trying to remove oil.
● Moreover, risk still remaining was not great enough so as to justify the closing of
factory with thousands of workers.

53)Klaus vs East India Hotel

Plaintiff dived into the swimming pool of a 5 star hotel, but hit the bottom as depth was not
sufficient. He suffered injuries and got paralysed.
● Hotel was liable
 ● There is duty of ensuring that services provided are safe. Any latent defect in
structure or service hazardous to guests would attract strict liability.
● Degree of care is especially higher because the consideration for service is v high.

54)Hall vs Brooklands
In a motor car race, 2 cars collided, and 1 car was thrown among the spectators,
injuring the plaintiff who was a spectator
● Defendant was not liable as volenti applies
● Plaintiff knowingly undertook risk. It is implied that such sporting events can
have such consequences, so injury could be foreseen.

55)Achut Rao Khodwa vs State of Maharashtra

During an operation, a mop was left inside a lady patient’s abdomen. Thus she developed
peritonitis, had to undergo another surgery , which she didn’t survive.
● Surgeon was liable for medical negligence
● He did not apply reasonable care expected from an ordinary surgeon
● Res ipsa Loquitur

56)Smith vs Baker
Workman was employed to work a drill for cutting a rock. Stones were being
conveyed from 1 side to the other using a crane, and each time the stones were
being conveyed, the crane would pass over the workman’s head. While he was
busy, a stone from the crane fell on the workman’s head
● Employers were held liable
● Volenti does not apply
● Although there was knowledge of the general risk involved, there was no
voluntary consent to undergo injuries casued by emplyer’s negligence
● The workman himself was not negligent

57)Dann vs Hamilton
Lady chose to travel in a car despite knowing driver was drunk. There was an
accident due to the driver’s negligent driving,and she was injured.
● Lady was entitled to compensation
● Volenti does not apply
 ● Intoxication of the driver was not to such an extent that taking a lift could be
considered an obvious danger

58) Alka vs UOI

Defendants installed electronic pump in a room near a residential area with kids. A 6 year
old came into the room, put her hand on the pump, and was injured.
● Defendant is liable for negligence
● Should have reasonably foreseen that this could happen
● Res Ipsa Loquitu​r applies

59)Haynes vs Harwood
Defendant’s servant left a 2 horse van unattended on the street. A boy threw stones
on the dog, endangering women and children on the road. Police Constable saved
them, but suffered injuries in the course of doing so
● Defendant is liable
● Volenti will not apply because it is a rescue case

60)Cutler vs United Dairies London​​ limited

61)Reeves vs Commissioner of Police of Metropolis

A man in a jail cell was diagnosed as having suicidal tendencies. Yet they left the hatch of
the cell door open, and the prisoner tied his shirt to it and hung himself.
● Police is liable
● It can be argued that the police did not directly cause his death and and that the
suicide was​ novus actus intervenius
● However, police were aware of the risk and had a duty to try to prevent the suicide.

62)South Indian Industr​​ies case

If patient submits himself to a particular medical procedure aware of the nature of treatment
he cant later hold doctor liable for any consequent damage

63)Sidaway vs Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and

Surgeon informed plaintiff of the possible consequences of surgery, but didn’t mention spinal
cord damage, as the possibility was v low. However, it did happen. Plaintiff alleged that
surgeon was negligent in not informing her about all the risks.
 ● Surgeon not liable
● His duty is to act in accordance with th practice followed by any ordinary surgeon
● The non disclosure in this case was deemed acceptable conduct by body of medical
professionals

64)Janaki S Kumar vs Mrs Sarfumia

During a surgery, sterilisation was performed on the patient. Consent was taken from the
patient while she was on anesthesia.
● Doctor is liable
● Consent sought while the patient is on anesthesia is not considered valid consent

65)Samira Kohli vs Prabha Manchanda

An unmarried woman was asked to undergo surgery. She signed the consent form for
laparoscopy, and laparotomy for diagnostic purposes. While she was unconscious, the
surgeon also removed her uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes after acquiring permission
from her mother for the same.
● The doctor was liable for medical negligence.
● There was no medical emergency and this was only a stage of diagnosis. The doctor
should have acquired consent from the plaintiff. Consent given by the patient’s
relative is not valid.

66)Jacob Mathew

67)State of Bihar v SK Mukherjee

68)Roshwell vs chemical and insulating company

Claimants negligently exposed to asbestos and developed pleural plaque which by itself
didn’t have any consequences, but could result in life threatening ailments in the future
● Claim was rejected
● No cause for action since there’s no damage yet

69)Glasgow Corp v Taylor

Poisonous berries, which looked like cherries, were grown in public garden. There was no
warning sign board / fencing around the shrub. A 7 year old ate the berries and died.
● Corporation is liable
● Had a duty to not attract children into danger
● Danger was reasonably foreseeable

70) White vs Jones