NEGLIGENCE

• Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Subhagwanti 1966 AIR 1750 – res ipsa

loquitur- suits for damages were filed by the plaintiff as heir of three
persons who died as a result of collapse of the clock belonging to the
defendant’s corporation. the court held that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
was rightly applied as in the circumstances of the case the mere fact
about the fall of the clock tower and it being owned and controlled by the
defendant, would justify the inference of negligence so as to establish a
prima facie case against the defendant.
• Glasgow Corporation v Taylor [1922] 1 AC 44 -The father of a seven-year-
old boy sued the Glasgow Corporation for damages following the death of
his son who died as a result of eating berries from a poisonous plant that
was growing in the Botanic Gardens in Glasgow. The gardens were open
to the public and managed by the defendant. The father argued that the
defendants allowed children to pass through their grounds frequently yet
did not take any action to warn or alleviate the danger caused by the
poisonous plant to children. The plant was enclosed by a wooden fence
which was open to the public and easily accessed by children. The court
held that the Glasgow Corporation was liable in this instance. They had
permitted children to go on to the land and it is understandable that the
berries would have appealed to visiting children, thus representing a
danger. The defendants were aware of this danger caused by the
poisonous berries and did nothing to prevent the damage. On this basis,
the action was required to proceed to trial
Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd [1921] 3
KB 560
The extent of liability where the injuries resultant from tortious negligence are entirely
unforeseeable.

Facts

Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the underhold of a ship when
they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. As it fell, the wood knocked against
something else, which created a spark which served to ignite the surrounding petrol
fumes, ultimately resulting in the substantial destruction of the ship. At first instance
(arbitration), it was held that the reasonable unforeseeability of the outcome meant that
the defendant was not liable for the cost of the ship

•
• OLGA TELLIS V BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 1985 -Some time in
1981, the State of Maharashtra and Bombay Municipal Corporation took a
decision that all pavement and the slum dwellers in the city of Bombay
will be evicted forcibly and deported to their respective places of origin or
removed to places outside the city of Bombay. Pursuant to that decision,
the pavement dwellings of some of the petitioners were in fact
demolished by the Bombay Municipal Corporation.In this case Supreme
Court held that the encroachments of the helpless street dwellers on the
pavements were involuntary act in the sense that it was compelled
inevitable circumstances and not guided by choice.

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

• Ashby v. White,(1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 938(955).- the plaintiff wished to go
and cast his vote. he was unnecessarily stopped by defendant because of
which he couldn’t cast vote. The plaintiff preferred candidate won by a
wide margin therefore it would have made no difference. But the court
awarded the plaintiff damages on the basis that the plaintiff had every
right to cast vote and by restraining him the defendant violated plaintiffs
right. Therefore he had to pay for the injury irrespective of the fact that
no actual damage happened. Ubi jus remedium
• Bhim singh v. J&K 1985 – a legislator was travelling where he was
unnecessarily stopped and taken into custody . a person should be
presented to the magistrate within 24 hours of arrest . he was neither
presented to the court within prescribed time nor could he go to sla. The
court awarded him exemplary damages because his rights were unjustly
violated.
• Municipal Board of Agra v. Asharfilal 9121 -It is the similar case to Ashby v
White. The name of plaintiff was deleted, dropped from voter list by the
Deft corporation, so plaintiff couldn't exercise his right to vote . Plaintiff
sued Deft.corporation for compensation.
• Marzetti v/s Williams 1830 - Plaintiff was an account holder or customer
who was having amount in his account he went to withdraw money by
Self cheque. Though there was sufficient amount in his account, the Deft
 banker refused to pay plaintiff without any reason. So plaintiff filed a suit
against Deft banker for damage. Even though plaintiff suffered no
monetary loss Deft.is liable for refusing customers cheque and therefore
committed tort.
• TORZER V CHILD -
•

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

 Gloucester Grammar School (1410) YB 11 Hen IV Fo 47 Pl 2123- there the
defendant set up a rival school to that of the plaintiffs. Because of the
competition, the plaintiffs had huge financial loss. It was held that the
plaintiffs had no remedy for the loss thus suffered by them.
 Mogul steamship co v. Mc Gregor Go and co same
 WILSON V WADDELL: HL 1876
 Fletcher v. Smith (1877)
 Ushaben v Bhagyalakshmi Chitra Mandir -the plaintiff filed a complain
against the makers of the movie jai Santoshi maa which showed goddess
Parvati lakshami and Sarasvati jealous of the protagonist goddess. And
thereby violating plaintiffs religious feelings . the court refused to grant
an injunction or stop the movie from broadcast as the makers of the
movie did no
 t commit any wrong. There creative license to interpret religious portrayal
was protected and there was no injury if it did not fit in plaintiffs religious
viewpoint , also the plaintiff could always refuse to watch the movie
 Mayor of Bradford v/s Pickles 1895- Corporation of Bradford was
supplying water from its well. Defendant was having adjacent land to the
corporation land wherein there was well.
Defendant was willing to sell his land. He approached the mayor of
corporation. Negotiations failed. Defendant dug well in his own land
.thereby cutting the underground supply of water of corporation well this
has caused a loss to corporation because there was no adequate supply of
water to the people of corporation. Plaintiff sued Deft for damages for
malice. Deft.is not liable, because defendant's act is not wrongful as not
violated legal right or plaintiff. There is factual malice, ill will digging well
in his own land does not amount to tort. <malice
 Chasemore v/s Richards 1859- Plaintiff was running a mill on his own
land, and for this purpose he was using the water of the stream for a long
 time. The Deft dug well in his own land and thereby cut off the
underground water supply of stream. Through percolation the water
gathered in the well of deft. The quantity of water of stream was reduced
and the mill was closed for non availability of water. Plaintiff sued deft for
damage. Deft. Not liable, because of principle of Damnum sine injuria.
No violation of legal right, though actual loss in money.<nalice>
 Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal -The plaintiff constructed 16 shops
on the old foundations of a building. The saidconstruction was made
without giving a notice of intention to erect a building undersec.178 of
the U.P. Municipalities Act and without obtaining necessary sanction
requiredunder sec.180 of that act. The defendants demolished this
construction. In an actionagainst the defendants to claim compensation
for the demolition, the plaintiff allegedthat the action of the defendants
was illegal as it was malafide. It was held that thedefendants were not
liable as no injuria could be proved because if a person construct
abuilding illegally, the demolition of such building by the municipal
authorities would notamount causing injuria to the owner of the
property. Hence, no compensation wasawarded
 Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co.
 Vishnu Dutt Sharma v Board of High School and Intermediate Examination
• Dickson v. Reuter's Telegraph Co. – using of name of

Malice
Bromage v prosser 1825
Mayor
SLA
NOBLE V HARRISON 1926
A tree shed a limb onto a passer-by, causing personal injury.
The Court of Appeal reversed the original finding in favour of
the claimant because the defect could not have been
discovered by inspection. A land-owner may become liable for a
naturally occuring danger arising on his land if he fails to
remedy it within a reasonable time of being made aware of it,
or from when he ought to have been aware of it. I see no
ground for holding that the owner is to become an insurer of
nature, or that default is to be imputed to him until it appears,
or would appear upon proper inspection, that nature can no
longer be relied upon . .’

Ponting v Noakes (1849) 2 QB 281

The claimant’s horse died after it had reached over the
defendant’s fence and ate some leaves from a Yew tree. The
defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the Yew
tree was entirely in the confines of the defendant’s land and
there had therefore been no escape.
Charles, J:
Sla