Torts

Sem I
Important Cases

Disclaimer:-
Some cases(s) may not be included and some included cases(s) may be extra. We
do not take liability for any damages or harm that can arise from this document or
use of this document.

1
MODULE I-FIRST MODULE

Ashby v. White-voting officer-inhabitant not settled-injuria sine damnum-no damage but legal right
infringed-no right without remedy-in vain to imagine right without remedy-damage hindered on his
right-

M.C.Mehta v. Union of India- evolution of tort law in india

Winterbottom v. Wright- privity of contract fallacy

Donoghue v. Stevenson-Snail in bottle-privity of contract

Klaus Mittelbachert v. East India Hotels Ltd.-sue as beneficiary of contract-plea of stranger to

contract is irrelevant in torts

Campbell v. Paddington Corporation- nuisance public and private-funeral viewing-wrongful

interference

MODULE II-SECOND MODULE

ACT OR OMISSION

Glasgow corp v. Taylor- omission-7 year old kid- poisonous berries in park- def. knew- no precaution-
omission of legal duty to put proper fencing-
omission does not include moral or social wrong (fails to save a starving man)

Municipal Corp Delhi v. Subhagwanti- clock tower collapsed-no necessary repairs and no periodic
check-up-failure of duty-death-liable for omission to take care

INJURIA SINE DAMNUM

Ashby v. White-voting- election- not settled inhabitant-violation of right- exercise and enjoyment of
right- right without remedy in vain-want of right and remedy reciprocal

Bhim Singh v State of J&K-Mla Bhim singh arrested by police - 4 days no magistrate-violation human
rights-vote crucial at session-compensation-deprived of fundamental and constitutional right- 50,000
exemplary damages

Marzetti v. Williams Bank-banker-funds in hand of consumer-refusing to honour-no loss or damage

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA

Gloucester Grammar School Case-school master- rival school- reduce fee-no remedy for loss

Mogul Steamship Co Ltd v. McGregor, Gow & Co-steamship companies-drove plaintiff out of tea-
carrying trade by of -reduced freight-increasing profits- not unlawful-

2
P. Seetharamaya v. Mahalakshmi- owner of land- right to build fence upon land to protect from
overflow of river-diverted to neigbours and causes damage-not transfer if already upon one’s land

Dickson v, Reuter’s Telegram Co.- A to B for shipment of goods-telegram to C-C delivers to A acting
on telegram- A refuses to honour- telegram company not at fault-no duty of care- def. only owe duty
to sender of telegram and not to recipient- not liable

Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir- “Jai Santoshi Maa”-contention hurt religious feeling-
Goddess Saraswati, Parvati and Laxmi depicted as jealous and ridiculed- hurt of religious feelings not
a legal wrong-no right to enforce religious views on another or restrain other from doing a lawful act-
no violation of legal right-

Acton v. Blundell-def, digging coal pit-intercepted the water plaintiff’s well-less than 20 year’s old- at
distance of one mile- not laible-owns surface may dig in at free will and pleasure-exercise of rights-
intercepts and drained of water-inconvenience to neighbour damnum sine injuria-

MENTAL ELEMENT-(MALICE)

Allen v. Flood-
A trade union official-not work alongside claimants-employe pressurised to get rid of claimants-loss
of work, claimant sued official-all workers hired day by day- trade union official never threatened
breach of contract b/c contract began afresh everyday-malice there, could not render conduct
unlawful b/c effect complained of was itsel in entirely lawful-

Employers refuse to employ for most mistaken, capricious, malicious, or morally reprehensible
motives but workman has no right of action against him

Town Area Committee v Prabhu Dayal

Plaintiff case- made 16 shops on old foundations-building known as GRAHI-defendant acting through
Chairman and vice chairman (2 & 3 Def.) demolished constructions- loss of 1000 rs. –

Notice bad under Sec 186 UP Municipal Act-only 2 hour notice – not a reasonable time under Sec
302-notice served plaintiff was out of station-action mala fide

NOT INJURIA-construction illegal-though malice

Mayor of Bradford Corp. v. Pickles

A lawful act not unlawful because of evil motive

Def. extracted percolating water-water supply to plaintiff’s reservoir reduced-def. motive to force
plaintiff to buy his land at his price-ACTION FAILED-right to extract water- though malice-unkawful
act with good intention illegal

3
Hollywood Silver fox Farm ltd. v. Emmett,

Plaintiff business of breeding silver foxes-breeding season, vixen nervous and liable- if disturbed
refuse to breed- miscarry kill young ones

Def. –dispute with plaintiff-made son discharge guns- injuring plaintiff’s business-plaintiff sought an
injunction-

Granted injunction-action for nuisance by noise-motive must be considered- no absolute right to

create noises-no nuisance of neighbours or public

Nuisance

Christie v Davey-

Plaintiff and defendant-lived in adjoining houses- plaintiff give music lessons and annoyed
defendant-def. banged walls-plaintiff injunction-malicious behaviour

Balak Glass Emporium v. United india Insurance Co.-

Plaintiff-firm occupying ground floor- MP of plaintiff went to studio- filled with water-water escaped
from upper storey (def. occupied)-ill will b/w 2 parties-tap left open & outlet tank closed, act by son
of joseph -wrongful intention

CAPACITY TO SUE

D. P. Y. Patnaik v. A. P.

Convicts deprived of some fundamental rights-not all-still have right to acquire land-also entt.-to Art.
21-no deprivation of life or personal liberty-

MODULE III-THIRD MODULE

Strict Liability

1. Rylands vs Fletcher
Facts: The def were owners of a mill. In order to supply it with water they
constructed a reservoir upon nearby land. The Pl was working certain coal mines,
under lands, close to but not adjoining the premises on which the reservoir was
constructed.
The def employed contractors to plan and build the reservoir. The contractors, in
excavating for the bed of the reservoir, came upon five long ago abandoned vertical
shafts. B/c they were filled with soil neither the contractors nor the defs suspected
that they were abandoned mine shafts. Within days one of the shafts gave way and
burst, letting water flow into the p/f’s workings, flooding their mine.

4
 Held: Blackburn J. held the mill owner to be liable, on the principle that, “We think
that the rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land
and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it
in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage
which is the natural consequence of its escape”.

Escape of Dangerous Thing

2. Cheater v Cater
Facts: The plaintiff was the tenant of the defendant and a field which was occupied
by the defendant was separated from a field which he had let to the plaintiff by a
yew hedge. The hedge overhung the plaintiff’s land by about three feet and a horse
which belonged to the plaintiff ate some of the yew hedge and consequently died.
Held: It was held that the defendant, who was the landlord, was not liable.

3. Giles v Walker
Facts: Seeds from some thistles on the defendant’s land blew into neighboring land
owned by the claimant and damaged his crops.
Held: The defendant was not liable as he had not brought the thistles onto his land
and there cannot be liability under Rylands v Fletcher for a thing which naturally
accumulates on land.

4. Firth v Bowling Iron Co. (Wire Rope)

5. Read v J. Lyons & Co Ltd

Facts: The claimant was employed by the Ministry of Supply as an inspector of
munitions in the defendants’ munitions factory and, in the course of her
employment there, was injured by the explosion of a shell that was being
manufactured.
Held: Not Liable. Defendants were not liable because there was no escape of the
thing outside the defendants’ premises

Non-Natural Use of Land

6. Noble v Harrison
Facts: There the branch of a non-poisonous tree growing on the defendant’s land,
which overhung on the highway, suddenly broke and fell on the plaintiff’s vehicle
passing along the highway. The branch had broken off due to some latent defect.
Held: It was held that the defendant could not be held liable under the rule in
Rylands v Fletcher as trees are not non-natural use of land.

7. T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v T.R. Subramaniam

5
 Facts: An explosive made out of a coconut shell filled with explosive substance,
instead of rising in the sky and exploding there, ran at a tangent, fell amidst the
crowd and exploded, causing serious injuries to the respondent.
Held: It was held that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher would be applicable because the
explosive is an “extra hazardous” object. The persons using such an object are liable
even for the negligence of their independent contractor.

Act of Stranger as a defense to Strict Liability

8. Richards v Lothian
Facts: A basin on the property of the defendant was blocked by an unknown person
causing a flood which damaged a flat below.
Held: The defendant was not held liable as it was the act of a stranger.

Statutory Authority as a defense to Strict Liability

9. Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co
Facts: A main belonging to a water-works company, which was authorized by
Parliament to lay the main, burst without any negligence on the part of the company
and the claimant’s premises were flooded.
Held: The Company was held not liable.

Plaintiff’s Own Default as a defense to Strict Liability

10. Ponting v Noakes
Facts: The claimant’s horse reached over the defendant’s boundary, nibbled some
poisonous tree there and died accordingly.
Held: It was held that the claimant could recover nothing, for the damage was due to
the horse’s own intrusion and alternatively there had been no escape of vegetation.

Applicability of Strict Liability in India

11. M.P. Electricity Board v Smt. Shail Kumari

Facts: The deceased was riding on his bicycle while returning from his factory in
night. A snapped live electric wire, which was from an illegally diverted line, was
lying on the road. There was rain and the road was partially filled with water. The
cyclist could not notice the live electric wire and as he came in contact with the
same, he died instantaneously due to electrocution.
Held: In this case, the apex court applied the rule of strict liability. The defense of the
dangerous being an act of the stranger (an exception to the rule of strict liability) was
not allowed because the same could have been foreseen.

12. S K Shangring Lamkang v State of Manipur

Facts: A high tension wire fell on the person riding a scooter, electrocuting him and
killing him.

6
 Held: An “act of god” as an exception to the rule of strict liability is held not available
in cases of death due to electrocution as a result of falling of high tension electric
wire from its pole due to lightning stroke or storm.

Absolute Liability in India

13. M.C. Mehta v Union of India

Facts: Oleum gas leaked on 4th and 6th December, 1985 from one of the units of
Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries, in the city of Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth
Mills Ltd. As the consequence of this leakage, it was alleged that one advocate
practicing in the Tis Hazari Court had died and several others were affected by the
same.
Held: Absolutely Liable. Justice Bhagwati “We would therefore hold that where an
enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm
results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the
enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected
by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which
operate vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v.
Fletcher”.

14. Klaus Mittelbachert v East India Hotels Ltd. (AIR 1997 Del. 201)
Due to hazardous nature of the premises, the rule of absolute liability was applied
and the defendants were required to pay exemplary damages amounting to 50 lac
rupees.

Vicarious Liability

15. Llyod v Grace Smith & co.

Facts: The plaintiff wished to sell some cottages and went to the solicitors.
Their managing clerk induced the plaintiff to transfer the cottages to him and
misappropriated certain mortgage money.
Held: The solicitors were liable to the client for the fraud of the managing clerk
though it was committed solely for his benefit.

16. State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi

Facts: No proof of deposit by the customers with the bank and a fake entry was
made in the customer’s passbook by the bank employee. The customer had handed
over the cheque to the employee of the bank in the capacity of a friend and
not to the bank and the bank employee had misappropriated the money.
Held: In view of this fact, the Apex Court held that the bank was not vicariously liable
for the act of the employee.

7
 17. Ormrod v. Crossville Motor Service Ltd.
Facts: A car was to be transported to Monte Carlo by an agent. The driver's
negligence caused an accident.
Held: The principal was responsible for this accident in the course of a principal-
agent-relationship. Lord Denning observed that the law puts a responsibility on the
owner of a vehicle who allows it to go on the road in charge of someone else, no
matter whether it is his servant, his friend or anyone else.

18. Tirlok Singh v Kailash Bharti

Facts: While the owner of the
motor cycle was outside the country, his younger brother took the motor cycle witho
ut his knowledge or permission and caused the accident.
Held: It was held that the younger brother could not be deemed to be the agent of
the owner of the motor cycle and the latter could not be vicariously liable for the
accident.

Liability of Partners
19. Hamlyn v Houstan & co.
Facts: One of the two partners of the defendants firm, acting within the general
scope of his authority as a partner, bribed the plaintiff’s clerk and induced him to
make a breach of contract with his employer (pliantiff) by divulging secrets relating
to his employers business.
Held: It was held that both the partners of the firm were liable for this wrongful act
(inducing breach of contract) committed by only one of them.

Liability of Master for act of his Servant

20. Limpus v London General Omnibus Co.

Facts: A bus driver racing to a stop to collect passengers deliberately obstructed the
driver of a bus of a rival company, overturning the latter's vehicle. The bus driver had
been given instructions against obstructing other buses.
Held: The defendants were liable. The driver was acting within the course of his
employment at the time; it was immaterial whether his act was forbidden.
Otherwise, companies could exculpate themselves simply by prohibiting their
servants from committing any torts during their service.

Control Test for Employment Status

21. Dharangadhara chemical Works Ltd v State of Saurashtra

The Supreme Court laid down that the existence of the right in the master to
supervise and control the execution of the work done by the servant is a prima facie
test, that the nature of control may vary from business to business and is by its
nature incapable of any precise definition, that it is not necessary that the employer

8
 should be proved to have exercised control over the work of the employee, that the
test of control is not of universal application and that there are many contracts in
which the master could not control the manner in which the work was done.

Integration Test for Employment Status

22. Cassidy v Ministry of Health

A resident surgeon in a hospital was held to be an employee, so that the hospital
was liable for his negligence.

23. Savita Garg v. Director National Heart Institute

The Supreme Court with approval the following proposition form Denning L.J.·s
Judgment in Cassidy’s case observed:
The hospital authority is liable for the negligence of professional men employed by
the authority under contract for service as well as under contract of service. The
authority owes a duty to give proper treatment-medical, surgical, nursing and
the like-and thought it may delegate the performance of that duty to those who are
not its servants, it remains liable if the duty be improperly or inadequately
performed by its delegates.

Exceptions to Independent Contractor Rule

24. Patel Maganbhai Bapujibhai v Patel Ishwarbhai Motibhai

Facts: The trustees of a temple employed a contractor to get electric connection for
use of lighting and mike arrangements in the temple from the well of an agriculturist
without informing and obtaining the permission of the Electricity Board. A person
was injured as the wires used by the contractor snapped.
Held: The trustees were held liable as the act of diverting electricity without
permission of the Board was in itself an illegal act.

25. Tarry v Ashton

Facts: The occupier of a house employed an independent contractor to repair a
rotten bracket which projected over the pavement from his wall. A passerby was
injured by the falling of a lamp from the bracket.
Held: He was held liable.
Where an especially high duty of care is imposed upon a person by law he cannot
escape liability for the breach of that duty by employing an independent contractor

26. Gray v.Pullen, (1864) 5 B & S 970

Facts: A was empowered under an Act to make a drain from his premises to a sewer,
by cutting a trench across a highway, and filling it up after the drain should be
completed. For this purpose he employed a contractor, by whose negligence it was
filled up improperly, in consequence of which damage ensued to B.

9
 Held: It was held that A was responsible in an action by B.

Where Master lends his Servant to Another Person

27. Mersey Docks & Harbor Board v. Coggins & Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd.
Facts: Coggins and Griffiths hired a crane and driver from the Mersey Docks and
Harbor Board. The driver, Mr. Newall, drove the crane negligently and trapped Mr.
McFarlane injuring him. The contract between the Board and the hirers stated that
the driver was to become their employee for the duration of the hire.
Held: The Board was held liable. It was held as a fact that the hirers had power to
control what Mr. Newall lifted with the crane but not how he lifted it. Control over
Mr Newall's work had not passed to the hirers. It is not to be held that control had
readily passed. Only if there is control over what work the person does and how he
does it, will control be held to pass.

28. Smt. Kundan Kaur v S. Shankar Singh

Facts: The partners of a firm temporarily gave their truck along with driver on hire
to a transport company for transporting certain goods. Driver negligently caused
accident.
Held: There was only transfer of service and not of control of driver from the general
employer to hirer and as such the partners firm where liable.

29. RSRTC v K N Kothari

Facts: The RSRTC hired a bus and a driver for running a bus on specified route. The
corporation also engaged a conductor, who managed the bus, collected fare from
passengers and also exercised control over the driver.
Held: For an accident caused by the driver, the hirer (RSRTC) was vicariously liable,
notwithstanding the fact that the driver continued to be on the pay roll of the
original owner. The apex court held that the transfer of effective control over a
servant would make the transferee of the vehicle liable for vicarious liability.

Course of Employment
30. Century Insurance v. Northern Ireland Road Transport
Facts: A patrol lorry driver smoked a cigarette while transferring petrol from the
lorry to an underground tank, which caused an explosion and damaged B’s property
Held: It was observed that although the act of lighting a cigarette was done by the
driver for his comfort and was an act both innocent and harmless by itself, the
careless act was done in the course of the driver’s employment and was a negligent
mode of conducting his work.

31. Beard v London General Omnibus Company

10
 Facts: At the end of a journey the conductor of an omnibus belonging to the
defendants, in the absence of the driver, and apparently for the purpose of turning
the omnibus in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through some by-
streets at a considerable pace, and while so doing negligently ran into and injured
the plaintiff.
Held: The defendants were held not liable as the conductor did an act he was not
authorized to.

Outside the Course of Employment

32. State of Maharashtra v.Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke
It was held by the court that if the unauthorised and wrongful act of the servant is
not so connected with the authorised act as to be a mode of doing it, but is an
independent act, the master is not responsible; for in such a case the servant is not
acting in the course of the employment but has gone outside of it.
33. General Engineering Services Ltd. V .Kingston and Saint Andrew Corporation
Facts: The appellants owned certain premises at Kingston, Jamaica. A fire broke out
in the said premises on which the premises the appellants promptly informed the
local fire brigade. The fire brigade took 17 minutes in reaching the appellants
premises which was at a distance of 1½ miles while the normal time for covering this
distance was 3½ minutes. By the time the fire brigade reached, the premises were
completely destroyed by fire. The reason they took so much time was because they
were following a “go slow” policy.
Held: The defendants were held not liable. The firemen’s unauthorised and wrongful
act was to prolong the time taken by the journey to the scene of the fire, as to
ensure that they did not arrive in time to extinguish it. Their mode and manner
of driving, the slow progression of stopping and starting, was not so connected with
the authorised act, that is driving to the scene of the fire as expeditiously as
reasonably possible, as to be a mode of performing that act. Hence the employers
cannot be held vicariously liable.

34. Sitaram Motilal Kalal v. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt

Facts: The owner had entrusted his car to a drive for plying it as a taxi. The driver lent
the taxi to the cleaner for taking it to the R. T.O.·s Office for driving test. The accident
happened when the cleaner was driving while giving the driving test. The driver was
then not in the vehicle. It is clear from the fact that at the time the accident
happened, the car was not being used as a taxi for the owner’s business.
Held: The owner was held not liable. The driver in lending the car to the cleaner for
taking a driving test did an act which he was not employed to perform and thus
clearly acted beyond the scope of his employment which was to drive the car as a
taxi.

11
 35. Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit ginning & Pressing Co. Pt. Ltd.
Facts: The manager of the defendant company was driving a car of the company on
its journey from Nagpur to Pandhurna on the Company’s business. The manager
took one Purshottam as a passenger in the car. The car met with an accident
because of the negligence of the manager in driving the car and Purshottam died.
Held: The Company was held liable by the SC. The Supreme Court observed:
´In the present case a responsible officer of the Company, the manager, had
permitted Purshottam to have a ride in the car. Taking into account the high position
of the driver who was the manager of the Company, it is reasonable to presume, in
the absence of any evidence to the contrary that the manager had authority to
carry Purshottam and was acting in the course of employment.

Effect of Prohibiton
36. Twine v. Bean’s Express Ltd.
Facts: The defendants provided for the use of a bank a commercial van and a driver
on the terms that the driver remained the servant of the defendants and that the
defendants accepted no responsibility for injury suffered by persons riding in the van
who were not employed by them. There were two notices in the van, one stating
that no unauthorised person was allowed on the vehicle, and the other, that the
driver had instructions not to allow unauthorised travellers on the van, and that in
no event would the defendants be responsible for damage happening to them. One
person who was not authorised to ride in the van got a lift in the van with the
consent of the driver. Owing to the negligence of the driver, there was an accident
and that person was killed.
Held: The Company was not vicariously liable. Lord Green, M.R. observed that his act
of driving was no doubt in the course of employment but the other thing he was
doing simultaneously was something totally outside the scope of his employment,
namely, giving a lift to a person who had no right whatsoever to be there.

MODULE IV-FOURTH MODULE

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA –

1) Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club

Facts –
Plaintiff – spectator – motor car race – defendant owner of track– collision between
two cars – injury to plaintiff

12
 Held –
Plaintiff impliedly took risk – danger inherent and foreseeable – defendant not liable.

2) Padmavati v. Dugganaika

Facts –

Driver of jeep – filling petrol – two strangers took lift – bolt of a wheel gave way –
strangers thrown out – one of them died.

Held –

Neither master nor driver liable – sheer accident – strangers voluntary action of taking
lift.

3) Illot v Wilkes

Facts –

Landowner – placed spring guns for poachers – plaintiff injured.

Held –

Not liable.

4) Bird v Holbrook

Facts –
Defendant - spring-gun trap – to catch an intruder – no warning by defendant –
plaintiff serious damage to knee – plaintiff sued.
Held –
Liable – no warning post – no reasonable measure used – intent to injure rather than
scare-off.

5) R v Williams

Facts –

Defendant – music teacher – guilty of rape – sexual intercourse with 16 year old girl –
pretence of an operation to improve her voice

13
 Held –

Liable, act done by the defendant must be the same for which the consent is given

6) Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp

Facts –

Plaintiff – cart driver – asked to drive a horse – both knew it was liable to bolt –
plaintiff protested but ultimately obeyed – horse bolted – plaintiff injured.

Held –

Man truly willing only when freedom to choice – full knowledge of circumstances –
absence of feeling of constraint – nothing should interfere with freedom of will.

7) Imperial Chemical Industries v Shatwell

Facts –

Plaintiff and brother – certified shot firers – employed in a quarry – quarry owned by
defendant company – work of plaintiff – wire detonators and check electronic circuits
– old practice of galvanometer which was outlawed by statutory regulation – claimed
50 % as vicarious liability.

Held –

Initially liable – appealed – plaintiff and brother experienced – no pressure – warning

– voluntary risk – case of volenti fit non injuria.

8) Wooldridge v Sumner

Facts –

Claimant – photographer at a horse show – sitting within the ring – took little interest
in proceedings – defendant’s horse – approached the bench at great speed – plaintiff
frightened – fell into the course of horses – knocked down.

Held –

No breach of duty.

ON VNFI – consent to risk of injury insufficient – consent to breach of duty.

14
9) Cutler v United Dairies (London) Ltd.

Facts –

Horse – pulling van – without driver – roadway to pvt land – driver called for help –
plaintiff injured while restraining horse – evidence that horse bolted twice before.

Held –

No negligence - novus actus interveniens – expect an injury – volenti non fit injuria

10) Smith v. Baker & Sons

Facts –

Claimant sued employer – employed to hold a drill – steam crane worked on stones
above his head – stone fell out and injured claimant

Held –

Liable – aware of danger – no consent to lack of care – entitled to damages.

11) Dann v Hamilton

Facts –

Plaintiff knew defendant was drunk – still travelled in the car – accident due to
negligence – injuries to plaintiff

Held –

Liable – though materially reduced capacity to drive safely – driver not absolved from
liability due to negligence – defence only when drunkness is extreme and glaring.

Note – awareness but no consent.

12) Owens v Brimmell

Facts –

Plaintiff and defendant went to a pub together – plaintiff accepted lift from def. –
knew he was drunk – negligent driving – accident – serious injuries to plaintiff.

Held –

15
 Liable – damages reduced for contributory negligence – riding with drunk driver and
no seat-belt. Note – awareness but no consent.

NEGLIGENCE –

13) Bradon v Osborne Garrett

Facts –

Plaintiff and family members in a shop – skylight in roof broken – negligence of

independent contractors – glass fell – injured plaintiff – wife tried to pull husband –
she reasonably believed danger existed – injured her leg.

Held –

Liable – person doing an act due to negligence of defendant and gets injured – entitled
to compensation unless contributory negligence exists

14) Dr. Laxman Balkrishnan v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu

if a doctor has adopted a practice that is considered “proper” by a reasonable body of
medical professionals who are skilled in that particular field, he or she will not be held
negligent only because something went wrong.

RESCUE CASES –

15) Haynes v Harwood

Facts –

Policeman – saw horse running loose among children – ran out – chased it and caught
it – got injured.

Held –

Horse owner liable – Damage foreseeable – policeman under a general duty to assist
and might get injured.

16) Wagner v International Railway

Facts –
Defendants train took curve – violent lurch – plaintiff’s cousin thrown out – plaintiff
walked out and reached the bridge – apparently the place to find his cousin – lost
footing in dark – fell from structure, injured.

16
 Held –
The risk of rescue, if only it be not wanton, is born of the occasion – reasonable
rescue attempt – liable.
17) Baker v TE Hopkin and Son

Facts –

Defendants called to clean a well – left petrol motored pump running – one of the
defendant went down – was overcome with fumes – the other defendant called for
assistance and went down – the claimant then went down too – all three died.

Held –

Rescuer – actions not freely and voluntarily accepting the risk – so defendant liable

18) Videan v British Transport Commission

19) Cutler vs United Dairies
The Claimant was injured when he entered a field to calm some horses. His claim for
compensation was unsuccessful as the horses presented no immediate danger to
persons or property and there was no need for him to intervene. He was thus held to
be volens.

BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY –

20) Baddeley v. Granville

21) Safety required that there should be a banksman at the mine where the man was
working; but the practice was not to have a banksman at night, and the accident which
caused the man's death was due to the fact that there was no banksman on duty when
it happened. The defence was that the man knew of this practice and knew the risk
which it involved but nevertheless went on working. This case was decided before
Smith v Baker & Sons and, as Wills J pointed that defence could have succeeded if
there had been no question of a breach of a statutory rule but only an unsafe system of
work. But it so happened that there was a special statutory rule for this mine which
required the presence of a banksman. So the court very wisely avoided the general
question which was later decided by Smith v Baker & Sons and founded its judgment
on the existence of the statutory rule. assumed that volenti non fit injuria is founded
on an implied agreement

17
ACT OF GOD –

22) Nichols v Marsland

Facts –
Defendant created artificial lakes – dammed natural streams – extraordinary rainfall –
embankments gave way – washed away four bridges of plaintiff.
Held –
Not liable – act of God – no negligence – could not be reasonably anticipated
23) Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway

Facts –

Construction of concrete paddling pool in bed of stream– obstructed natural flow of

stream – extraordinary rainfall – stream overflow – damage to plaintiff – found out if
no obstruction, no overflow.

Held –

Liable – foreseen the possibility – must have taken care.

24) Ramlinga nadar v Narayyana Reddiar

Facts –
Plaintiff booked goods with defendant for transportation – Criminal activity – mob
robbed defendant’s lorry
Held –
not an act of god as there was a human intervention.
25) Manindra nath Mukherjee v Mathuradas Chatturhuj
Facts –
Huge hoarding at crossing – severe storm – hoarding collapsed – fell on plaintiff’s
head
Held –
Pure negligence and not Act of God.
26) Saraswati Parabhai v. Grid corporation of Orissa
Facts –
Electric pole – uprooted – fell down with livewire – death of a person.
Held –
Responsibility of defendant to provide protection of rain and storm.

18
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT –

27) Fardon v. Harcourt Rivington

Facts –
Dog left inside shut car – quiet and docile – plaintiff passed by – dog barked and
jumped – smashed glass panel – splinter entered plaintiff’s eyes.
Held –
Extremely unlikely event – no negligence – guard against reasonable probabilities and
not bound by fantastic probabilities.
28) Stanley v Powell
Facts –
Defendant fired at pheasant – shot glanced off oak tree – hit plaintiff in eye
Held –
No negligence – course of nature – inevitable accident.
29) Holmes v Mather
Facts –
Woman on sidewalk – knocked down by horses – groom, best efforts to steer the
horses back
Held –
No negligence – to constitute wrongful trespass, willful or negligence.
30) National Coal Board v J. E. Evans & Co. (Cardiff) Ltd.
Facts –
Plaintiff – electric cable under land – trench excavated in land by a firm – damage to
cables.
Held –
Not liable – no knowledge – inevitable accident.

PLAINTIFF THE WRONG DOER –

31) Bird vs Holbrook (same as above)

PRIVATE DEFENCE –

32) Cherubin Gregory v State of Bihar

Facts –

19
 Wall of toilet house of deceased fell down – used toilet of the accused – accused
protested – oral warnings ineffective – copper wire with electricity across the passage
– deceased touched wire, died.
Held –
Liable – not entitled to inflict serious injury just because of trespass.
33) Morris v. Nuengt
Facts –
Plaintiff’s dog bit defendant – defendant raised gun – dog ran away – shot the dog.
Held –
Not justified – to justify, actually attacking the party at the time.

NECESSITY –

34) Southport Corporation v. Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd.

Facts –
Tank ship – landed on prop. of plaintiff – ship made lighter to prevent from breaking
– release of oil
Held –
Necessity – otherwise would have been a worse disaster.
35) Southwark London Borough Council v. Williams
Facts –
Homeless couple – entered a vacant house – trespass – necessity claimed.
Held –
Not a necessity.
36) Carter v Thomas
37) Kirk v Gregory

STATUTORY AUTHORITY –

38) Vaughan v. Taff Vale Railway Co.

Facts –
Railway Company authorized by statute – traversed plaintiff’s land – sparks from
engine – fire to plaintiff’s woods.
Held –
Not liable. Not negligent.
39) Smith v. London and South Western Railway

20
 Facts –
Servants of rly. Co. – left grass, hedges near rail line – sparks from engine – fire – fire
carried to nearby cottage due to wind – cottage burnt
Held –
Negligent – liable.
40) Metropolitan asylum district v Hill

MODULE V

Assualt

1. Stephens v. Myers
Df pulled out of his chair, advanced towards chairman with clenched fist, but stopped
midway by another member.

Still held liable for assault – interception of blow by 3rd person will not absolve the defendant
from liability

2. Bavisetti Venkata Surya Rao v. Nandipati Muthaya

Plaintiff owed Rs.11.60 as land revenue. Munsif told plaintiff that his ear-rings would have to
be sold/valued by a goldsmith. When goldsmith arrives, someone else pays his debt.
No assault – as no fear or physical threat just by presence of goldsmith

Battery

3. Cole v. Turner
Least touching of another person amounts to tort of battery

4. Innes v. Wylie- BATTERY CASE

Policeman unlawfully prevented the plaintiff from entering a club
He was not held liable for battery as mere passive obstruction like door or wall, cannot be
considered as battery

False Imprisonment

5. Ram Pyare Lal v. Om Prakash

Every restraint of liberty of one person by another, is in law an imprisonment, and if
imposed without lawful cause, constitutes a false imprisonment which is both a criminal
offence (section 340 IPC) and an actionable tort.

21
 6. Bird v. Jones (partial restraint case)
Pf not allowed to cross bridge through footway, but was free to cross the same through
carriageway.
No false imprisonment

7. Mee v. Cruikshank
Total restraint = false imprisonment, however short its duration.
(if there is unrisky means of escape, the restraint cannot be termed as total)

8. Merring v. Grahame White Aviation Co.

pf suspected of having stolen a keg of varnish from the shop of employers(dfs). The df asked
the pf to go with policemen to company office, he was asked to wait there in waiting room,
while 2 policemen remained outside. The pf did not know he was free to go anywhere.
Df held liable as policemen caused apprehension of fear and he was not a free man
9. Rudal Shah Case
Prisoner’s jail sentence over, further imprisonment = unlawful detention

10. Anwar Hussian v. Ajoy Kumar

Judicial officer acts recklessly, illegally or maliciously in ordering arrest.
Held liable

11. Kundal Lal v. Dr.Des Raj

SP cancels bail bond and orders sub-inspector to arrest.
Both held liable for false imprisonment as SP did not have power to cancel the bail bond

12. Austin v. Dowling

The party that files complaint with judicial officer, and the judicial officer orders arrest, the
party filing complaint cannot he held liable for false imprisonment

13. Jhon Lewis & Co. v. Tims

Mother and daughter go to shop, daughter commits theft, both detained by staff for about
an hour for managing director to take decision, and then handed to police. On trial, daughter
found guilty, mother acquitted. Mother brings charges for false imprisonment.
Df’s held not liable, as she was not detained beyond a reasonable time for managing director
to take decision

Defamation

14. Dixon v. Holden

A man’s reputation is his property and if possible more valuable more than any other
property.

15. South India Rly Co. v. Ramakrishna (Non-defamatory statement example)

“I suspect you are travelling with a wrong or false ticket”.

16. Sim v. Stretch (Non-defamatory statement example)

22
 “Edith resumed her services with us today. Please send her possesions and the money
borrowed, also her wages”.

17. SNM Abdi v. Prafulla K. Mohanta

Accused former CM of misusing man and muscle power.
Court found allegation false, baseless and defamatory, and awarded Rs. 5 lakh as damages.

Innuendo

18. Tolley v. J.S Fry & Sons. Ltd.

Knowledge or intention to defame is not necessary.
Innocence is not a defence

19. Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper

Newspaper publishes photo of Mr.M and Ms.C together with a caption that they have
announced their engagement. This was false as they were already married to separate
people. Wife of Mr.M, the pf, brought action, and df’s were held liable as the caption meant
she was not M’s lawful wife and was living in immoral co-habitation with him.

20. D.P Chowdhury v. Km Manjulata

Newspaper publishes that 17yr old girl ran away with a college boy(both belonging to
distinguished families).
Court finds that item was un-true and published negligently with utter irresponsibility. Df’s
held liable.

21. Morrison v. Ritchie & Co.

Published in good faith that pf had twins, but she was married only 2 months ago.
Df’s held liable

22. E. Hulton & Co. v. Artemus Jones

Humorous article about some festival at Dieppe, in which some Artemus Jones, a church
warden was accused of living with a mistress of ill-repute in France. Writer and owner
unaware that an Artemus Jones exists in real, but is a barrister, not a church warden.
Court held that it reasonably referred to him only, and held that a person charged with
defamation cannot defend himself by saying that he did not intend to defame.
The df’s were held liable.

23. Youssoup v. Metro-Goldwyn Mayer Pictures Ltd.

The pf, a Russian princess, was falsely imputes by a cinematographic film that she had been
raped or seduced by the notorious monk Rasputin.
Df’s held liable.

24. Huth v. Huth

If 3rd person wrongfully reads defamatory letter => no publication, and hence no
defamation.

23
 25. Theaker v. Richardson
If there is likelihood to be read by somebody else, like clerk/wife, there is publication

26. T.J. Ponnen v. M.C. Verghese

Husband writes defamatory things about father in law to his wife through a letter, wife
shows it too her father.
Held not defamatory as husband-wife in India considered to be single entity and hence no
publication.

27. Radhey Shyam Tiwari v. Eknath

The def. published defamatory statement against plaintiff but could not prove that the facts
published by him were true and therefore, he was held liable.

28. McQuire v Western Morning news Co. ( Fair Comment Requirements)

Appreciation of existing facts and not invention of new facts.
Should be bonafide i.e. Without Malice
Comment must be in public interest.

29. Boxsius v. Golbert

An advocate under instructions of his client, dictated to his typist, a letter addressed to B,
containing defamatory statements about B. The letter was press copied by another clerk. B
brought an action for defamation against the advocate.
The Court observed that the privilege protecting a business communication made on a
privileged occasion covers, "all incidents of its transmission and treatment which are in
accordance with the reasonable and usual course of business."
The Court further added that the publication to his clerks by the solicitor was covered by
qualified privilege and, as such, Advocate was not held liable.

Trespass

30. Street v Mountford

A landlord of leased premises does not have exclusive possession, nor does a lodger or a
licensee. However, a tenant or subtenant does.

31. Bulli Coal Mining Co. v. Osborne

The Df’s mined from their land through to the Pf's land. This was held to be trespass to the
subsoil

32. Ellis v Loftus Iron Co.

Even if you step onto plaintiff’s land, it is as bad as he walked ½ mile into it.

24
 33. Holmes v Wilson and others (Trespass is continuing wrong)
The Df’s built supports for a road on Pf’s land. The Df’s paid damages for the trespass, but
were held liable again in a further action for failing to remove the buttresses.

34. Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco Co (Trespass in Air)

D committed trespass by allowing an advertising board to project 8 inches into P's property
at ground level and another above ground level

Aircraft Act , 1934- (Indian Act)

Reasonable altitude in air space is exclusive possession for enjoyment of property if
breached it will amount to trespass.

35. Joliffe v Willmett & Co.

Liability can be imposed when a person acts in a voluntary manner so even under a honest
mistaken belief. Thus, If in moving in his own land, a man inadvertently allows his blade to
cut through into his neighbor's field, he is guilty of a trespass.

36. Six carpenter’s case

All the carpenters entered in an inn and ordered for some wine and bread. After having wine
and bread, they refused to pay. The Court held that they were not trespassers ab initio since,
the case was of only non-payment it was non-feasance and not a case of misfeasance.

Nuisance

37. Crown River Cruises v. Kimbolton Fireworks

15-20 min o fireworks. Debris would fall on pf’s land and caused damage due to ensuing fire
held liable. => nuisance = continuing interference

38. Radhey Shyam v. Gur Prasad

Radhey restrained from setting up a mill as the noise from the machines would affect Gur
Prasead’s health and hamper his peaceful enjoyment of his land.
Court granted injunction to stop the mill, as it severely affected the physical comfort of Gur
Prasad.

39. Robinson v. kilvert (Extra sensitive)

Extra sensitive paper was being damaged from heat from neighbours premisies. Pf’d claim
failed as ordinary paper would not have been damaged.

40. Mckinnon Industries v. Walker

Fumes from Df’s industry damaged delicate orchids. These fumes would have also damaged
normal flowers.
Hence, claim granted

41. Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (Malice)

25
 42. Christie v. Davey (Malice)
Plaintiff and defendant, both were neighbours. The plaintiff and their family were fond of
music. They used to sing and play various instruments. It disturbed the defendant. He started
hammering the wall, beating trays, shrieking and whistling.

The Court held the defendant liable as he was doing it intentionally and maliciously for the
purpose of annoying the plaintiff.

Public Nuisance

43. Solton v. De Held

De Held was a priest. The bell of church was rung day and night, disturbing everyone, pf was
disturbed the most as he was living right next to the church.
Court held that it was only public nuisance and granted injunction.

44. Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babu Lal

Injunction against brick grinding machine, which created noise and left red residue on
clothes, and caused pollution in the vicinity.
He also got special damages => both private and public nuisance.

45. Campbell v Paddington Corporation

The claimant owned a flat which overlooked a street. The defendants erected a grandstand
on the occasion of the funeral procession of Edward VII. The grandstand obstructed the view
from the claimant’s flat. She could not rent her flat out to spectators and recovered
damages for loss of profits on the grounds of public nuisance.

46. Sturges v. Bridgemen

Defendant was a confectioner and had a kitchen in the back of his house. The plaintiff did
not feel any noise and vibration from kitchen for over 20 years. After 20 years, plaintiff, who
was a medical practitioner shifted his consulting room in the back garden of his house. After
this shifting, the plaintiff felt the nuisance caused by kitchen's noise and vibration.

The plaintiff brought the suit and the Court granted injunction against the confectioner.
Defendant's claim of prescriptive right failed because the interference had not been
actionable nuisance for the preceding period of more than 20 years.

Also, nuisance in one place (Belgravia square) may not be nuisance in another place
(Bermondsey )

Trespass Goods

47. National Coal Board v. Evans

26
 Df’s had employed certain independent contractors to make excavations on their land.
Beneath the land the plaintiff's predecessor had laid some electric cables. The defendants
had no knowledge about the underlying cables. In course of excavations, the cable got
damaged.
The df’s were not held liable for this damage as it was not known to them.

48. Richardson v. Atkinson

Df took some wine out of the pf’s cask and mixed water to compensate the taken wine from
the cask.

The court held the defendant liable for conversion of the whole cask as he converted part of
the contents by taking them away and the remaining part by destroying their identity.

49. Hollins v. Fowler

If, a person innocently obtains possession of the goods of a person who has been
fraudulently deprived of them and disposes them of whether for his own benefit or that of
any other person, is guilty of conversion.

50. Roop Lal v Union of India

military jawans found some firewood lying by the river side and they thought that the wood
probably belonged to the government and thus took away the wood for camp fire and fuel
Union of India was liable,and the fact that the jawans did not intend to commit the theft did
not absolve the state from its liability.

Negligence

1. Butterfield v Forrester [Kings Bench, [1809]

• The pl-injured-striking obstruction-roadway-The df-making repairs-

house-pole across road. pl, left public house-neared dark-riding horse
violently -streets of Derby-struck pole-seriously injured-witness state pl
not riding violently-he would have observed pole-no evidence pl
intoxicated at the time.

held liable : One person at fault will not dispense with the requirement that
another person use ordinary care for himself.

2.Davies vs Mann[152 Eng. Rep 588(1842)]

• FACTS-

27
• Pl tied donkeys feet,left side of road. Df coming in wagon at high
speed,hit donkey and killed it.

• HELD-

• negligence of Pl, but Df could prevented accident using ordinary care.

What the plaintiff negligence means

Cases based on contributory negligence
3. Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi (1980)
• Bus overcrowded, people sat on the roof. The driver tried to overtake a cart ignoring
passengers sitting on roof. passenger hit by branch, received damage and died.

• held both driver and conductor negligent-contributory negligence of passengers

including the deceased, who took risk of travelling.

4.Yoginder Paul Chowdhury v. Durgadas (1972) –

• The Delhi High Court-pedestrian tries to cross road all of a sudden-hit by
a moving vehicle- guilty of contributory negligence.

Doctrine of alternative danger

5. Jones v. Boyce (1816) –
• pl passenger of defendants coach. Coach driving negligently- pl jumped
off bus-fearing accident-broke leg

• It was held that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover.

6.Shayam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan (1974)

• truck caught fire-negligence of df. One occupants, Navneetlal, jumped out
save himself from fire, struck against stone lying by roadside and died.
The defendants were held liable.

Rules For Determining Contributory Negligence

• Absence of due care on his part about his safety.7.Bhagwat Swarup v
Himalaya Gas Co. (AIR 1985 HP 41)

28
• Plt. Neg. must be the operative cause of accident.8.Agya Kaur v PRTC
[AIR (1980)]

• Test of Prudent Man- Resonable care exercised by the plaintiff 9.Sushma

Mitra v MPSRTC AIR 1974 SC

• Doctrine of alternative danger- Plaintiff is permitted to take risk in

dangerous situation created by defendant. 10.Brandon v Osborne,
Garret & Co. Ltd. 1924 1 KB

Presumptions that others are careful/ statutory negligence.

• Plaintiff not guarding against the act of negligence of the defendant is not
liable of Contributory negligence -

11.Gee v Metropolitan Rly. Co. 1873 QB

12.UOI v Supriya Ghoash AIR 1973 Pat. 129
• Contributory negligence of children- A child may not be able to
appreciate and understand certain damages like an adult -13.Yachuk v
oliver Blias co. Ltd. (1949) A.C. 386

• Doctrine of identification ( imputed Contributory negligence)- overruled.

14.Oliver v Birmingham & Midland Omnibus Co. (1933) 1 KB 35
How far CN is defence?..
The Law reform (Contributary Negligence) Act, 1945-
Abolished TLO rule and said apportionment of damages will be
according to the degree of their fault.15. Lalman Badri Prasad v Union
of India AIR 1954 VP 17 and
Butterfield and Davies cases- CN is a complete defence in common law
that cause hard ship to plaintiff

16. P. R. Jhaveri Vs. K.K. Tak and Ors. 2002 (6) SCC 455.
• It was a case of collusion in between a Car and a truck.

• HELD- contributory negligence-act or omission on the claimant's part,

contributed-damage caused- such nature described as `negligence'.

29
 • Negligence means breach of a legal duty to care, but used in expression
"contributory negligence", not mean breach of duty. It means failure by a
person to use reasonable care for the safety of either himself or his
property, so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an "author of his
own wrong.

Nervous Shock
Courts first recognized that negligently caused psychiatric illness-give rise
to claim for damages 17.[Dilieu v White and Sons (1901) 2 KB 669
Why courts are reluctant to award damages for emotional
disturbances-18.
Victorian Railway Commissioners v. Coultas, (1888) 13 App Cas 222.
• gate keeper invited pl and wife, driving buggy ,to enter gate, train
approaching, narrow distance between train and buggy, no collision, but
lady fainted, suffered nervous shock resulting illness and miscarriage.

• The Privy Council held that "damage arising from mere sudden terror
unaccompanied by any physical injury but occasioning a nervous or
mental shock cannot under such circumstances be considered a
consequence which in the ordinary course of things would flow from
negligence of the gate-keeper". And in this case it was held that the
damage was too remote to be recovered since there was no actual bodily
impact.

Wilkinson v. Downton, 2 Q.B. 57 (1897)

Df (joke) told pl-her husband injured in accident-lying with broken

bones- pillow need to carry him home. pl shock to nervous system-week
of suffering and incapacity. df held liable
• Held- A party may seek recovery for outrageous conduct that causes
physical harm or mental distress.

20. Dulieu v White [1901] 2 KB 669

30
 Pf serving in public house as barmaid, van drawn by horses smashed into
building . No physical injury to pf but pleaded- due to nervous shock she
become physical ill, miscarried, gave birth brain damaged child.
• HELD- liability in such cases arises where shock caused “reasonable fear
of immediate personal injury to oneself was caused by”.

• illness caused by nervous shock -as much a physical injury as broken

bone or torn flesh wound.

.
Burden Of Proof On Plaintiff
Need of close relationship with primary victim was overruled in 23.Chadwick v
British transport Corporation (1967) 1 WLR 912
22.Hambrook v Stokes Bross[1925] 1 KB 141
first case involving secondary victim.
df left lorry, top of street,engine running, started by itself, ran down
incline,mother saw lorry moving in direction of children, mother frightened for
safety of children, bystander told child injured, she suffered nervous shock
resulted death.
Held liable even she not within area of physical injury.
23. BOURHILL v YOUNG [1943] AC 92HOUSE OF LORDS

motorcyclist killed-himself responsible- pregnant woman reached scene, saw

blood, suffered shock, premature labour, loss of baby
Held- insufficient proximity, she not present at time of accident, not liable,
deceased no foreseeablity.
24.King v Phillips [1953] 1 QB
mother looking from window, taxi backing up sons tricycle , heard sons scream,
injury slight, suffered psychiatric injury result shock.
Held-no claim, watching from window rather than highway facts of Hambrook
v Stokes “far removed from the present” Weinfield: The case requires
consideration
25. McLoughlin v O’Brian[1983] 1 AC 410

31
road accident of father,son,2daughters, pf(mother) home 2 mile from accident,2
hours later informed, her son dying,taken to hospital where daughter died,she
saw through window situation of rest of her family, suffered psychiatric
trauma.
Held- no claim, allowed damages not at or near scene of accident at or shortly
after
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
Hillsborough disaster, Liverpool fans died in a massive crush. police negligently allowing too
many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium friends and relatives saw their close
ones die and suffered from nervous shock

Held:

Plaintiffs were secondary victims.They shoud witness the event though their own “unaided ”
senses

Page V Smith
Mr.Page was in an accident,suffered no injuries,however recurrence of myalgic
encephalomyelitis (Chronic fatigue syndrome) from which he had suffered for 20 years but
was then in remission.The defendant claim that the damage was Unforseeable.

Held:

It was held that Mr.Page was a direct victim of the accident,there is no issue of
forseeablility,secondary victims were spectators etc,the test of forseeability was to be
applied to them,eggskull rule a defendant must take their victim as they find them.

White v Chief Constable of thepolice officers who were present in the aftermath of
the Hillsborough disaster sued for post traumatic stress disorder. South Yorkshire Police

Primary victims:entitled to received compensation,even if NS was unforeseeable.

Secondary victims:compensation subject to control mechanism,

1. Close ties with main victim (which is presume in case of spouse, parent and child)
and in other cases it is to be proved.

2. Plaintiff must have been present at the accident or its immediate aftermath

3. Psychiatric injury received is direct perception of the accident or its immediate

aftermath and not upon hearing about it from someone else

Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta

Damages for mental agony in case of harassment of the plaintiff by public officers.

32
 Gaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India
compensation for mental agony cannot be allowed in cases of breach of contract

Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia

Damages for mental agony were given parents when their child treatment suffered severe
damage due to negligence of the hospital staff and was left in a vegetative state. The child
was separately allowed damages for the injury suffered in the same case.

Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airline

verification of visa papers constitutes deficiency in service on part of airline - bonafide action
taken by staff of airline cannot be held to be deficiency in services

Halligua v. Mohan Sundaram

Shock which can be measured by direct consequences on bodily activity which can form the
basis for an action in damages

Haynes v Harwood
defendant pleaded novus actus interveniens or remoteness of consequences i.e. mischief of
the child was the proximate cause and negligence of defendant servant was remote cause .
It was held that the def. Is liable even though the mischief on the part of children was
anticipated. Wrongful act shpuld be the real cause (Causa Causan) and not causa sine qua
non (An intervening cause of loss which, though not direct, may nonetheless contribute to
the loss) of damage.

Lampert v Eastern national omnibus co.

Mrs Lampert was in an accident lead to disfigurement of her face,he husband deserted
her,she claimed damages foir the loss of company of her husband.her estranged relations
with her husband that led to him deserting her.

• Test of reasonable foresight was rejected and test of directness was considered to be more
appropriate by court of appeal in Re polemis and furness withy and Co. Ltd, 1921.

Smith v London &South Western Railway Co

The railway company allowed heap of trimmings of hedges and grass near a railway line.
Spark from the railway engine set fire to the material. Due to high wind the fire was carried
to the plaintiff’s cottage, (situated 200 yards away from the spot where the fire began),
which was burnt.

Defendants were liable even though they could not have forseen the loss of the
cottage,when negligence is established the defendant is laible whether he could have
forseen it or not.

33
 Re Polemis And Furness Withy And Co. Ltd

Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene in tins. Due to leakage
in those tins some of their contents collected in the hold of the ship. While discharging at
Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually
destroyed the ship. The falling of the plank was due to Defendant’s negligence

To determine whether an act is negligent, one has to see the foreseeable damage, if there is
none the act is not negligent, but if it can cause damage,and the damage thus caused by the
negligent act ,was not the foreseen type of damage is immaterial.

Ovrseas Tankship U.K. Ltd. v Morts Dock & Engineering Co.

Ltd.
The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil to leak from their ship,the oil coated the water
and the shore,sparks from the welding of Morts dock welding torches set fire to the
oil,causing damage to the shipIn an action by Mort's Dock for damages for negligence it was
found as a fact that the defendants did not know and could not reasonably have been
expected to know that the oil was capable of being set alight when spread on water. The
dock owners knew the oil was there, and continued to use welders

Test of directness was replaces by test of reasonable foresight,

Hughes v Lord advocate

a post office employee opened a manhole for the purpose of maintaining underground
telephone equipment covered it with a tent. It surrounded by parafin lamps but otherwise
unguarded. A child of 8 years entered the tent and started playing with lamp. The lamp fell
into the manhole and caused a violent explosion resulting in the fall of boy also in man hole
and severe injuries to him from burns.It was foreseeable that a child would get burn by
tampering with the lamp but the explosion could not be foreseen.House of lords held that
since the kind of damage was foreseeable although the extent was not. def were held liable.

MODULE VI

Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932- negligent interference with an individual’s life, person and property-
imposed duty on manufacturer and any other person who is in a position to harm the interest of the
other in his activity

PASSING-OFF

Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Charanjit Singh & Others- Plaintiff trademark “HONDA” respect to
automobiles & power equipments-Def. mark HONDA pressure cookers-mark HONDA by the
defendants not honest adoption-cause confusion-plaintiff application allowed

34
Pizza Hut International v. Pizza Hut India Pvt. Ltd.- trading style of plaintiff international-plaintiff
repuration established in India long before started business- adoption of ‘Pizza Hut’ by def. an act of
passing

CYBER DEFAMTION

SMC Pneumatics v. Jogesh Kwatra-first cyber defamation-Delhi High Court-passed ex-parte and
interim injunction- restraining def. from sending derogatory mails-illegal activity

Malicious Prosecution

1. Bolandanda Premayya v. Ayaradara

Plaintiff was accused of committing theft. Called by police officer to police station. Police
conducts search at his house, finds out that no theft committed by him. He then files for
damages against df for malicious prosecution.
Courts rules that mere filing of complaint with police is no malicious prosecution. It starts
only when some judicial authority is set in motion as a result of the complaint.

2. Khagendra Nath v. Jacob Chandra

The Prosecution is not deemed to have commenced before a person is summoned to answer
a complaint.
There was mere lodging of ejahar alleging that the plaintiff wrongfully took away the bullock
cart belonging to the defendant and requested that something should be done. The plaintiff
was neither arrested nor prosecuted.
It was held that merely bringing the matter before the executive athourity did not amount to
prosecution and therefore the action for malicious prosecution could not be maintained

3. Mohammad Amin v. Jogendra Kumar Bannerjee

The defendant had filed a complaint before the magistrate charging the plaintiff with
cheating. The magistrate thereupon examined the complainant an oath and made an
inquiry.
Notice of the inquiry had been issued to the plaintiff who attended it with his counsel and
incurred costs doing so. The magistrate finally dismissed the complaint. In these
circumstances the Privy Council held that there was a prosecution.

4. Gaya Prasad v Bhagat Singh

The privy council pointed out that the conduct of the complainant before and after the
complaint has to be seen to decide whether he was the real prosecutor or not.

If the complainant knowing that the charge is false tries to mislead the police by procuring
false evidence for the conviction of the accused, he would be considered to be the
prosecutor.

35
5. Kamta Prasad v National Buildings Constructions Corp.Pvt Ltd.
The officer of the respondent corporation found certain articles missing while preparing
inventory and checking up with the stock register. The plaintiff was prosecuted under sec.
403 of the I.P.C. but was given the benefit of doubt and hence acquitted. The plaintiff
brought an action for malicious prosecution

6. Ram Lal v. Mahender Singh

The plaintiff and his father had been implicated in an offence of murder and they were
acquitted by the court. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed suit for malicious prosecution. It was
held that merely because the plaintiffs came to be acquitted or discharged by the criminal
court as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt as is required in criminal law,
it does not mean that such acquittal or discharge could necessarily boomerang upon the
defendant as a case for malicious prosecution.
The burden of proof squarely lied upon the plaintiffs to prove that the prosecution was
malicious, mala fide and done with an intention to harass and defame the plaintiffs. No such
case was made out by the plaintiffs, much less proved. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not
entitled to claim any damages.

7. Girija Prasad v Uma Shankar Pathak

The pf was an advocate and also a Jan Sangh leader and had started an agitation on food
scarcity and one Jan Sangh worker had gone to a hunger strike.
Girija Singh a sub inspector was deputed to control the crowd that had collected there to
support the agitation. Then there were some bullet shots made from the revolver of the sub
inspector. He stated that while he was grappling with some person who was assaulting him
the revolver got fired mistakingly.
On that date Girija Singh had lodged an FIR stating that he was assaulted by some person,
his watch snatched and also the pf Uma Shankar pathak was present there and was
instigating the crowd against him.
The case was investigated and the pf was arrested and released on bail on later. he was
finally acquitted after 6 months
The pf then sued 4 persons for malicious prosecution , the sub inspector Girija Prasad who
lodged the F.I.R. , the S.H.O. of that area who entertained the report and two other persons.

M.P. High court found that the report prepared by Girija Prasad was false and at that relevant
time the pf was not present there but was appearing infront of a civil judge.

Eventually Girija Prasad was held for malicious prosecution and others acquitted of the
charge and not held liable for malicious prosecution.

8. West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Dilip Kumar Ray

Respondent no.1 was an employee of the appellant No.1- Board and disciplinary proceeding
was initiated against him and a FIR was lodged against him and others for alleged
misconduct and commission of various offences. Initially, the respondent No.1 was placed
under suspension for alleged acts of misconduct while functioning as the Superintending
Engineer, pending investigation, drawal and disposal of the disciplinary proceedings against

36
 him. Since no charge sheet was issued within a period of four months a writ petition was
filed by the respondent No.1 for quashing departmental proceedings.
The writ petition was disposed of directing the Board to issue the charge sheet. Accordingly
the charge sheet was issued on 17.1.1986 containing 10 charges. Respondent No.1
submitted his reply to the said charge sheet inter alia denying and disputing each and all of
the charges levelled against him. He prayed for permission to inspect certain documents and
to take copies thereof.
Since the said prayer was not accepted, another writ petition was filed on 13.9.1986 before
the High Court
In the said writ petition order passed by the High Court was with to the effect that the
enquiry should continue upon proper inspection being granted to all documents for which
inspection had been offered, excepting three items.
It was further directed that the enquiry should commence after grant of proper opportunity
to the respondent no.1 in accordance with law.
Respondent No.1 continued to make grievance about denial of opportunity and on 10th
September, 1986 purportedly written statement of defence in reply to the charge sheet was
filed.
By order dated 12th December, 1986, the respondent no.1 was informed that his reply was
found unsatisfactorily and it was decided to hold an enquiry. Subsequently enquiry officer
was appointed and a presenting officer was also appointed.
However, the enquiry officer appointed originally was replaced because of respondent
no.1's allegations of bias.

Made possible by the hard work of the following people:-

 Muizz ul-Iftikhar Drabu

 Shivansh Agarwal
 Shrinivas Sinha
 Siddhant Khetawat
 Vinayak Ojha

37
38