Casebook on Law of Tort

Gloucestor Grammar School case (1410)

Fact:-
The defendant had set up a school rival to that of the plaintiffs with the result
that the plaintiffs were required to reduce the rate of tuition fee and suffered
substantial loss.

Issue:
1. Whether the plaintiffs were liable or not?
2. Whether the defendant’s act was illegal or not?

Decision:
It was held that the plaintiffs had no remedy at law.

Reasoning:
Whenever any person does something in exercise of his legal right in a lawful
manner without infringing the legal right of another person, that other person
cannot complain if he suffers as a consequence of such exercise of legal right.

Chesemore v. Richars (1859)

Fact:-
The defendant sank a well a quarter of a mile away from a natural stream and
pumped up water for supply to a neighboring town. It diminished the volume of
water in the stream. The plaintiff owned a watermill which could not be worked
because of the shortage of water level in the river, fed by that stream.
Thereupon the plaintiff sued the defendant.

Issue:
1. Whether the plaintiff had any legal rights or not?
2. Whether any legal right of the plaintiff had been violated or not?

Decision:
It was held that the plaintiffs had no remedy at law.

Reasoning:
It was held that the plaintiff had not acquired the legal right to use the
underground water intercepted by the defendant.
1
 Ashby v. White (1703)

Fact:-
The defendant, a returning officer, wrongfully refused to register a duly
tendered vote of the plaintiff who was a qualified voter. The candidate for
whom the vote was tendered was elected and hence no loss was caused as a
consequence of the rejection of vote of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the
defendant. It was contended that the action was not maintainable, for the
plaintiff had not suffered any actual or pecuniary damage.

Issue:
1. Whether there is a damage or not?
2. Whether there is an injury or not?

Decision:
It was held that the defendant is liable for his refusal to allow the plaintiff to
register his vote.

Reasoning:
In this case, the plaintiff has not suffered any damage on his part, because the
candidate for whom the vote was tendered was elected and hence no loss was
caused as a consequence of the rejection of vote of the plaintiff. But damage is
not a condition of liability in tort. Only injury or legal of violation of right is
enough. In this case, the plaintiff had a legal right to vote and that was violated.
Holt C.J. overruling this object held:
“If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and
maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and
indeed it is vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and
want of remedy are reciprocal.

Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club (1983)

Fact:-
In this case certain persons were owners of a racing tract for motor cars.
Spectators were admitted on payment to view the races and stands were
provided in which they could do this safely but many persons preferred to stand
along and outside the railing. Two cars, which were running at a pace of 100
miles per hour, were approaching a sharp bend to the left. The car in front and
more to the left turned to the right; the other car did the same, but in so doing
touched the off side of the first mentioned car, with the result that the first

2
mentioned car was shot into the air over the kerb and the grass margin and into
the spectators against the owners of the track.

3
Issue:

1. Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not?

2. Whether the plaintiffs gave their consent or not?

Decision:
It was held that the defendants were not liable.

Reasoning:
1. There was no negligence on the part of the defendants. Their duty was to
see that the course was as free from danger as reasonable care and skill
could make it, but they were not insurers against accidents which no
reasonable diligence could foresee or against dangers inherent in a sport
which any reasonable spectator can foresee and of which he takes the
risk.
2. There are some defenses to escape from liability in tort. One of them is
consent of the plaintiff. In this case plaintiff gave their consent impliedly.
Harm suffered voluntarily is not actionable injury.

Cleghorn v. Oldham (1876)

Fact:-
The plaintiff, Jeanie Cameron Cleghorn claimed damages against the defendant
Cicely Mary Oldham, for personal injuries caused by defendant’s negligence.
The plaintiff was a spectator at a golf course. The defendant, who was
demonstrating a stroke to the plaintiff’s brother, struck the plaintiff in the face
with the gold club.

Issue:
1. Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not?
2. Whether the injury is incidental or due to the negligence of the
defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiffs gave their consent or not?
Decision:
The jury found that the defendant was negligent and, therefore, was held liable.

Reasoning:
1. In this case the injury occurred due to the negligence of the defendant.

4
 2. The personal injury of the plaintiff occurs due to the negligent act not
incidental.
3. The plaintiff gave his consent to take a risk which is reasonable. But he
was not prepared to take a risk for a negligent work and therefore in this
case consent is not a defense.
Smith v. Baker (1891)

Fact:-
The plaintiff was employed as a workman in the stone quarry of the defendant,
and worked there for some months, with full knowledge of the fact that he was
exposed to danger by reason of the negligent practice, prevailing in the quarry,
of swinging stones over the quarrymen’s heads by means of a crane. The
plaintiff was injured by the fall of a stone, and in consequence sued the
defendant.

Issue:
1. Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not?
2. Whether the plaintiff gave his consent or not?

Decision:
It was held that, mere knowledge on his part would not prevent the plaintiff
from recovering damages.

Reasoning:
Lord Halsbury held that the plaintiff did not even know of the particular
operation that was being performed over his head until the injury happened to
him and therefore, consent was out of question.

Mohr v. Williams

Fact:-
The defendant was an ear specialist doctor. The plaintiff consulted him and he
advised operation on her right ear. The plaintiff agreed to that. While she was
under the influence of anesthetic, the doctor found that the left ear was more
diseased and consequently operated upon the left ear. The plaintiff sued the
doctor for assault.

Issue:
1. Is it assault or not?
2. Whether the plaintiff gave his consent or not?

5
Decision:
The defendant was held liable.

6
Reasoning:
In this case the defendant gave her consent only for the right ear not for the left
ear. Consent must be given to the precise invasion or at least substantially the
same invasion which has been suffered by the plaintiff.

Nicholes v. Marseland (1876)

Fact:-
The defendant had constructed some artificial lakes on his land by damning up a
natural stream. Due to extra ordinary rainfall of unprecedented violence the
stream and lakes swelled to such an extent that ultimately artificial banks burst
and some of the bridges were carried away by the rush of escaping water.

Issue:
1. Whether there is an act of negligence or not?
2. Whether the predominant cause is natural force or human act?

Decision:
It was held that the defendant was not liable.

Reasoning:
It is clear that the defendant could not have reasonably anticipated such an extra
ordinary rainfall and on this finding the court held that, there was no liability
inasmuch as the water escaped by an act of God, which is a defense in tort.

Mahindra Nath Mukherjee v. Mathuradas Chaturbhuj (1946)

Fact:-
The defendant was the proprietor of a motion picture exhibition establishment
called the Rupali cinema. On the roof of the building there was a skysign which
was a more or less permanent structure held firmly in a place in an upstanding
position. It was 12 feet high and 25 feet wide. On this framework firmly
attached to it in vertical position there was a galvanized iron sheeting which
covered the whole of the framework. The banners were displayed from the sky-
sign. These banners were held against the galvanised sheeting by means of
cheap coir ropes. One day one of the banners (12 feet high and 3-1/2 feet wide)

7
fell from its position against the sky sign. The wooden frame of the banner
struck the plaintiff on his head.

Issue:
Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not?
Whether the act is caused due to natural force or human act?

Decision:
The defendant was held liable.

Reasoning:
As to the defense of act of God the court held:-
“An Act of God is an operation of natural force so unexpected that no human
foresight or skill could reasonably be expected to anticipate it. In the town of
Calcutta during the monsoon season stormy weather is not unusual and storms
of considerable severity are by no means unprecedented. Wind velocities of
from 31 to 48 miles per hour are sometimes experienced in Calcutta and gusts
from 28 to 33 miles per hour are not uncommon in monsoon season. Therefore,
a gust of wind with a velocity of less than 27 miles per hour in the town of
Calcutta during the monsoon season cannot be said to be so unexpected that on
human foresight could reasonably be expected to anticipate it, and cannot be
regarded as vis major or act of God.”

Kirk v. Gregory (1876)

Fact:-
X died in a state of delirium tre mens. While his servants were feasting and
drinking, X’s sister-in-law (Brother’s wife) removed X’s jewellery and his
watch from an unlocked box in another room where X lay dead and kept in an
unlocked box in another room for safety. Some unknown person stole it.

Issue:
Whether it is a trespass to goods or not?
Whether there is any necessity of interference or not?

Decision:
The defendant was held liable.

Reasoning:
The sister-in-law was held liable to X’s executors for trespass because there was
no proof that her interference with the jewellery was necessary, probably on the
ground that the property was not under actual attack.
8
9
 Att. Gen. v. Nottingham Corporation (1904)

Fact:-
The corporation proposed to use a building as small pox hospital in a populated
area. As a result, it causes a damage of infection to people living nearby. The
defendant was sued for nuisance.

Issue:
Whether there is a nuisance on the part of the defendant or not?
Whether there is any statutory authority in favor of the defendant’s act?

Decision:
The defendant was held liable for nuisance.

Reasoning:
1. In this case, erecting a small pox hospital in a populous locality by the
defendant was an act of nuisance because it spread danger of small pox
among the people living nearby.
2. The defendant’s act was not a statutory authority. However erecting a
small pox hospital was his legal right, he was not supposed to erect it
wherever he liked, so, the defendant was held liable for nuisance.

Cole v. Turner (1705)

Fact:-
The plaintiff and the defendant meet in a narrow passage and without any
violence or design of harm, they one touches the other gently. The defendant
applied force on the plaintiff and it was very trivial. The force did not cause any
harm, the wrong was still constituted. It was not caused physical harm.

Issue:
Whether touching gently without any intention to harm is battery or not?

Decision:
The defendant was not held liable for battery.

Reasoning:

10
In order to constitute the tort of battery, it is essential that the plaintiff should be
conscious of the conduct at the time it occurs. Interest in personal integrity is in
any case, entitled to protection, although the plaintiff is asleep. So, when two
persons touch each other gently it will not be treated as a battery.

Stanley v. Powell (1891)

Fact:-
The defendant, who was a member of a shooting party, fired at a pheasant. One
of the pellets from his gun glanced off the branch of the tree and wounded the
plaintiff who was engaged in carrying.

Issue:
Whether there is negligence on the part of the defendant or not?

Decision:
It was held that the defendant was not liable.

Reasoning:
1. The defendant fired to the pheasant not to the plaintiff and he has not an
intention to injure the plaintiff. Glancing off the branch of the tree is an
inevitable accident. So, he was not be held liable.
2. The defendant didn’t fire negligently. Escaping the pellet was not due to
his negligence but merely for an inevitable accident.
(The ratio decidendi in this case has been criticised as erroneous, though the
decision itself can be supported on the ground of volenti non fit injuria).

Stephens v. Myers (1830)

Fact:-
The plaintiff was in the chair at a Parish meeting. The defendant who sat at the
same table some six or seven places away from the plaintiff became vociferous
and interrupted the proceedings of the meeting. By majority it was, then,
resolved that he be expelled. He said he would rather pull the plaintiff out of the
chair than be ejected and he advanced with a clenched fist at the plaintiff, but he
was stopped by the Church warden who was sitting next but one to the plaintiff.

Issue:
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of battery or not?
Whether there is an immediacy of use of force or not?

11
Whether there is an assault or not?

Decision:
The defendant was held liable for assault.

Reasoning:
1. The defendant’s action made a reasonable apprehension of battery. His
approach was likely to beat the plaintiff.
2. When the defendant advanced his clenched wrist there an immediate
possibility to commit a battery.
3. The defendant’s action was an assault, because it caused the plaintiff a
reasonable apprehension of immediate infliction of a battery.

Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar (1964)

Fact:-
The defendant to prevent ingress of persons in his latrine fixed up a naked
copper wire across the passage leading up to the latrine and connected with the
electric wiring of the house. One Mst. Madilen managed to enter the latrine
without contacting the wire but as she came out, came into contact with the wire
and died as a result of shock recieved.

Issues:
1) Whether the act done by the defendant was dangerous or not?
2) Whether the defendant had duty not to do so?
3) Whether the defendant could take defense of the victim being trespasser?
Decision:
The defendant was held liable.

Reasoning:
Fixing up a naked wire across the passage the passage to prevent ingress of any
person in the latrine of the defendant was definitely dangerous and he must have
had duty not to occupy such dangerous way. But occupying such dangerous
means to injure the trespasser, he breaches his duty. Though the victim was a
trespasser but where defendant causes such a dangerous act intentionally, he
should be liable because one cannot be allowed to create danger with a
deliberate intention to injure a trespasser.

Blake v. Barnard (1840)

12
Fact:-
The defendant who was the captain of the ship went into his cabin and brought
out a pistol and pointed at the plaintiff’s head saying that if the plaintiff were
not quiet he would blow his brains out.

Issue:
Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of harm or not?
Whether there is an immediacy of committing a harm or not?
Whether there is an assault or not?

Decision:
It was held that the defendant was liable.

1. The defendant pointed at the head of the plaintiff is a reasonable

apprehension of committing a battery.
2. The defendant when points his pistol at the head of the plaintiff, there is
an immediate possibility to be committed a battery to the plaintiff.
3. As in this case there is reasonable apprehension of immediate battery to
the plaintiff it was an assault and the defendant was held liable for
assault.
Reasoning:
But if the person, who threatens to shoot, is at such a distance that the bullet
cannot reach the plaintiff there is no assault.

Bird v. Jones (1845)

Fact:-
The defendants had wrongfully enclosed a part of the public footway on a
bridge, put seats in it for the spectators of a regatta on the river and charged for
admission to the enclosure. The plaintiff insisted on passing along the enclosed
part of the footpath and climbed over the fence of the enclosure without paying
the charge. The defendant refused to let him go and told that he might go back
into the carriage way and cross the other side if he wished. The plaintiff
declined to go back and remained there for about half an hour.

Issue:
Whether the plaintiff confined wrongfully or not?
Whether the confinement was complete or partial?

Decision:

13
The defendants were held not liable.

Reasoning:
1. The plaintiff was not imprisoned wrongfully. He merely excluded from
entering into the enclosure. So, the defendant is not liable.
2. Although the defendant enclosed the footway it was not complete but
merely partial. Mere partial restraint, however inconvenient may be,
cannot be actionable.

Herring v. Boyle (1834)

Fact:-
In this case the plaintiff was placed by her mother at the defendant’s school. She
came to the defendant and wanted to take the boy home during holidays for a
few days. The defendant refused to allow the mother to take her son unless his
dues were cleared.

Issue:
Whether the plaintiff was confined or not?
Whether the plaintiff has knowledge of his being confined wrongfully?

Decision:
The defendant was held not liable.

Reasoning:
On being sued for false imprisonment it was held without any dissent that there
was no imprisonment because the boy had no knowledge of his mother’s having
desired that he should be permitted to go home and of the refusal by the school
master.

Kanhaiya Lal v. Badri Lal (1965)

Fact:-
The plaintiff appellant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 600.00 as damages
against the defendant respondents. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had
obtained a decree against Ganpat and Bhura and in execution of that decree they
had got attached one she-buffalo with a female calf and another she-buffalo
(called jhotri’ n local parlance). These cattle were handed over by the plaintiff
to Bhura and Ganpat. After the attachment the cattle were kept in the custody of
the defendants as supurdar. It was found that all the cattle died natural death
without any negligence on the part of the defendants.

14
The question arose, whether the plaintiff was entitled to maintain suit for
trespass.

Decision:
The plaintiff was entitled to sue the defendant.

Reasoning:
The Court held that in the circumstances of the case Bhura and Ganpat were
holding the cattle as agents of the plaintiff without acquiring any right in them,
and the plaintiff was entitled to sue for trespass inspite of the fact that he was
not in immediate possession ot the cattle.

Khan Mohammed v. State of Rajasthan (1967)

Fact:-
The plaintiff was granted a contract for preparing Katha from a forest. After the
termination of contract, the plaintiff again prepared Katha which was seized by
the State and agreed to release it if the plaintiff paid market price of Katha and
also penalty and royalty. The plaintiff paid market price of Katha and also
penalty and proceedings were not taken in accordance with the provisions of
Mewar Forest Act.

Issue:
1. Were the proceedings brought according to provision of the forest Act?
2. Was the plaintiff a true owner?
3. Was not the plaintiff a trespasser?
Decision:
The court held that the plaintiff could not claim any property in Katha.

Reasoning:
The Court held although proceedings were not brought according to provision
of the Forest Act yet the plaintiff being a trespasser could not claim any
property in Katha against true owners, namely, the State.

Meering v. Graham White aviation Co. Ltd. (1920)

Fact:-
English court of Appeal held that the tort of false imprisonment could be
committed even if the plaintiff did not know that he was being detained. In this

15
case the plaintiff was suspected of stealing a keg of varnish from his employer’s
workshop. He was asked to wait in the waiting room and while he was there the
policemen remained outside. When sued for false imprisonment the defendant
contended that the plaintiff was perfectly fee to go wherever he liked, that he
knew it and did not desire to go away.

Issue:
1. Did the plaintiff know about his wrongful confinement?
2. Was there total restraint on the part of the plaintiff?

Decision:
The Court rejected these contentions and held the defendant liable.

Reasoning:
Though the plaintiff had no knowledge about his confinement, yet the wrong
was committed by the defendant. Another reason is there was total restraint on
the part of the plaintiff.

Entick v. Grahame White Aviation Co. (1765)

Fact:
The defendant had entered into the land of plaintiff, without causing any kind of
harm or damage he came back. But the plaintiff filed a suit against him for
trespass.

Issues:
1. Whether the entry was wrongful or not?
2. Whether the plaintiff had possession or not?
3. Whether any actual damage needed to be trespass?
Decision:
The defendant was held liable.

Reasoning:
Only wrongful entry is enough for trespass. As the plaintiff was in possession of
the land and the defendant on it without any lawful authority given by law or
the owner he was liable for trespass to land though on damage was caused, he
coure no actual damage is needed to prove one trespasser.

16
 Perera v. Vandier (1953)

Fact:-
The defendant had motive to make any kind of harm to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff got apprehended by the motive of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a
suit against the defendant for damages.

Issues:
1. Whether the motive was harmful or not.
2. Whether the act was wrongful or apprehended to harm?
3. Whether wrongful motive could make a lawful act unlawful?

Decision:
The defendant was not held liable.

Reasoning:
Though the motive might be harmful to plaintiff as such apprehended but there
found no wrong with act. Only an ill or wrongful motive cannot make a lawful
act unlawful where not harm actually happens.

Graham v. Peat (1801)

Fact:-
The plaintiff was holding a land under a lease that was void. The defendant
entered into the land of the plaintiff without any lawful justification. The
plaintiff sued the defendant for trespass to his land.

Issues:
1. Whether the entry of the defendant was lawful
2. Whether plaintiff’s possession of land was lawful
3. Whether lawful possession of land needed to be necessary for trespass
Decision:
The defendant was held liable.

Reasoning:
The defendant entered the land without any lawful authority or permission of
the plaintiff. So his entry was unlawful and the plaintiff’s possession was

17
unlawful as the lease was void. But the defendant was held liable because to
prove trespass. Only possession is enough whether it is lawful or unlawful is
immaterial.

Six Carpenter’s Case (1610)

Fact:-
The proprietor of an inn brought an action for trespass against six carpenters,
who having entered the inn, ordered a quart of wine, drank it, and refused to pay
for it. The plaintiff sued for damages.

Issues:
1. Whether in such circumstances, their failure to pay for the wine could be
treated as a misfeasance, which would make their original entry into the
inn unlawful as a trespass.
Decision:
The defendant was held not liable.

Reasoning:
It was observed that, “not doing cannot make the party who has authority or
license by the law, a trespasser ab initio, because not doing is no trespass... So,
in the case at Bar, for the denying to pay for it is no trespass, and therefore, they
cannot be trespassers ab initio.

Elias v. Pasmore (1934)

Fact:
In order to arrest a person, the defendants, being police-officers, entered the
plaintiff’s premises. While there, they seized and carried away documents found
on the premises. Amongst the documents, there were some which constituted
evidence on the trial of the person arrested, but there were others which did not
so constitute, and were subsequently returned. The plaintiff took an action for
trespass ab initio.

Issues:
1. Whether the entry of the defendants was unlawful
2. Whether enter ground of entry was abused;
3. Whether the entry would amount trespass ab initio for abusing not the
enter ground of such entry?
Decision:
The defendants were not held liable for trespass ab initio.

18
Reasoning:
It was held that the defendants were only trespassers ab initio as to the
documents that were seized and returned, but were not liable for any damages in
respect of the entry on the premises for the purpose of arrest.

Thomson v. Gibson (1839)

Fact:
The defendant built a wall on the land, occupied by the plaintiff that causes
obstruction to access of the plaintiff to his house on market.

Issues:
1. Whether the defendant will be liable for trespass or not?
2. Whether the plaintiff has suffered from damage or not?
Decision:
The defendant was held liable for trespass.
Reasoning:
When a person wrongfully put or erects something on other’s land, it is directly
a trespass. If that other suffers any danger is immaterial question.

Youssoupoff v. Metro Pictures (1934)

Fact:-
The defendant Metro-Golwyn Mayer Pictures Ltd. published in the film pictures
and words which were understood to mean that the plaintiff had been seduced
or raped by Rasputin.

Issue:
Was there any defamatory photographic part and speech which synchronizes
with it?

Decision:
The court held that the defendant was liable for defamation.

Reasoning:

19
There was defamatory photographic part and speech which synchronizes with it,
in the cinema film, and which pointed at princes, youssoupoff, which constitutes
libel.

Monson v. Tussauds (1894)

Fact:-
Tussauds Ltd who were wax-work exhibitions, displayed a model of the
plaintiff with a gun in their show-room. The figure was placed in juxtaposition
to three others criminals and immediately adjoining ‘the chamber of Horrors’
which was filled with representatives of murderers and other criminals. The
plaintiff had been tried for murder but was released on a verdict of non-proved.
A scene of that murder was also displayed in the chamber of Horrors.

Issue:

1. False defamatory statement

2. Libel actionable per se.

Decision:
The defendants were held liable.

Reasoning:
It is libel in all cases actionable per se, when the false statement made in a
permanent form, the person defamed whether has suffered damage or not. In
this case, defendants published defamatory statement against the plaintiff. So,
they were held liable.

Capital and countries Bank vs. Henry and Sons (1882)

Fact:-
The defendants having a dispute with one of the branch managers or the bank
sent a circular to their own customers that they would not receive in payment
cheques drown on any of the Capital and countries Bank. The Bank brought an
action alleging that, the notice was defamatory inasmuch as it amounted to an
imputation insolvency.

20
Issue:
Whether there is an innuendo or not?
Whether there is any defamation or not?

Decision:
The defendant was not held liable for innuendo.

Reasoning:

1. In this case, there are a number of good interpretations it is undesirable

that one should be seized upon to give defamatory meaning to the
statement. The test is that, what is natural, necessary or reasonable
inference from the statement in question.
2. There is not defamation because of lacking of false statement, defamatory
and publication.

Tolley v. U.S. Fry and Sons Ltd (1930)

Fact:-
The defendants were famous manufactures. They made advertisement a
caricature of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for libel against the defendant
that he did not permit his port rait fobe exhibited and it imperiled his amateur
status.
Issue:

1. Whether there is a publication of defamatory statement or not?

2. Whether the inner sense of the statement is defamatory or not?

Decision:
The defendant was held liable for innuendo.

Reasoning:

1. In this case, publication of the statement is not defamatory in its primary

sense.
2. The inner sense of the libel is defamatory, which imperiled plaintiff’s
amateur status. So, the defendant was held liable.

21
 Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd. (1929)

Fact:-
The plaintiff Mrs. Cassidy was lawful wife of Mr. Cassidy. Though they didn’t
live together, Mr. Cassidy usually met her in a shop where she was employed.
At a horse race meeting Mr. Cassidy posed, in company with a lady to a racing
photographer and told him that he was agreed to merry the lady and he might
announce it. The photographer without any further inquiry sent the photograph
to the Daily Mirror with an inscription that their engagement has been
announced. The Newspaper published it.

Issue:

1. Whether there is a publication of defamatory statement or not?

2. Whether the inner sense of the statement is defamatory or not?

Decision:
The defendant was held liable for innuendo.

Reasoning:

1. In this case the statement was a positive statement not defamatory

although it had lacking of inquiry.
2. The statement, however innocent, its inner sense is so defamatory. The
inscription meant that the plaintiff was an immoral woman who cohabited
with Mr. Cassidy without being married to him. So, the defendant was
held liable.

Campbell v. Peddington Corporation (1911)

Fact:-
The defendant in pursuance of resolution of their council erected a stand cross
the highway to enable its members view the funeral procession of his majesty
the Edward viii. The stand obstructed the view of the procession from plaintiff’s
house. Consequently she was unable to let out her windows.

Issue:
Whether the act of the defendant was ultra vires or intra vires?

22
Decision:
It was held that the defendant was liable.

Reasoning:
Avory. J. expressed his opinion that every act done authorized or ratified on
behalf of the corporation by the supreme governing authority of that corporation
or by any person or body of person to whom the general powers of the
corporation are delegated is for purpose of law of torts. An act of the
corporation is liable for it whether it is intra vires or ultra vires of the
corporation. This is the reason why defendant was made liable for the act done
by him.

Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

Fact:
In this case the appellant drank a bottle of ginger beer which was
purchased by her friend from a retail shop. The bottle contained remains of
a decomposed snail. As the bottle was opaque the snail could not be
detected until greater part of the content was consumed by the appellant.
She filed a suit for damages against the respondent who were the
manufacturers of ginger beer. It was alleged that she suffered from a
severe shock and gastroenteritis.

Issues:
Whether the finding snail in the beer was actionable or not?
Whether there was negligent on the part of the defendant or not?

Decision:
The respondent was held to be liable.

Reasoning:
The production company has a legal obligation to take reasonable care of
their own goods. If the goods are not suitable for consumption because of

23
not taking care by the production company, they must be liable. This is
actionable for the reason of negligence.

Glasgow Corporation v. Muir (1934)

Fact:-
One day plaintiff’s party went to the defendant’s tearoom and asked the
manageress, Mrs. Alescandez, if they might eat their food there. She then
went back to serve a group of children at the sweet counter in the hall.
Mcdonald and a boy of his party accordingly brought the urnof tea down
to the building. As they entered the hall, the children at the sweet counter
were about five feet away from then. Mcdonald suddenly lost his grip on
the back handle of the urn and six children including the pursuer were
scalded by its contents. No one knew why Mcdonald lost his grip on the
urn, since the pursuer didn’t call him as a witness. The urn itself was a
perfectly ordinary metal one.

Issue:

1. Was the urn of defendant not perfect?

2. Was the plaintiff negligent in his behavior?
Decision:
The respondent was held liable.

Reasoning:
It was so held because the urn of the defendant had taken reasonable case
of the picnic party on the part of her.

Dr. M. Maye Gawda v. State of karnataka (1996)

Fact:
The complaint and five children of his family took an elephant joy ride in
Mysore, after taking a number of sounds while the complaints and other

24
persons where in the process of getting down the cradle, the elephant
became panicly in that, rush hour and san forward, the complaint was
thrown on the ground and as a result of which he received serious injury
resulting in total left of eye sight of both the eyes. He was a medical
practitioner. He claimed compensation of Rs 99,000.

Issues:
Whether the opposite party, who organized the ride was liable of
negligence or not?

Decision:
It was held that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party
who has recognized the joy ride.

Reasoning:
The reason of the accident was unusual an unfortunate behavior of the
elephant because it was held that it was a female elephant having
participated in such ride and festival for more than thirteen years. It had
acted in film shooting, various religious functions and honoring the VIPs.

Fardon v. Harcourt Rivington (1932)

Fact:-
The defendant and his wife went to the market leaving their dog in their
shut car. They went into a shop. While they were in the shop for reasons
unknown the dog became excited and jumped about and broke the back
window by its nose or paws. A fragment of the broken glass went into the
eye of the plaintiff and he lost his eye.
Issue:

1. Whether there is negligence on the part of the defendant or not?

2. Was the dog ferocious in general?
3. Did it happen before?
Decision:
The defendant was held not liable.

25
Reasoning:
This accident was not happened for the negligence of plaintiff. It was a
mere accident. Lord Duned held that, ‘people must guard against
reasonable probabilities but they are not bound to guard against fantastic
possibilities.

Manjit Kaur v Deol Bus service Ltd (1989)

Fact:-
Manjit Kaur, a widow, whose husband had been killed in a motor accident,
filed an appeal through her counsel claiming enhanced compensation. The
case remained on the daily list two weeks and then it was dismissed in
default. The counsel not only failed to appear on behalf of the client and
the appeal became time barred because the council did not communicate
with the party anything about the appeal for years. An action was brought
against be counsel.

Issue:
i) Whether there was any duty of the counsel towards the client or
not?
ii) Whether there was any breach of that duty or not?

Decision:
It was held that the defendant was liable.

Reasoning:
In this case, the case remained on the daily list for two weeks and then it
was dismissed for default. So, if provided it, that the counsel was not
active in the way of performing his duty towards his client. The counsel
for his negligence or through the breach of duty towards the client held
liable.

26
 Tokugha v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. (1999)

Fact:-
The appellant, a doctor by profession, whose marriage was proposed to be
held on December 12, 1995, with one Mrs Akhi, was called off, because of
disclosure by the Apollo Hospital Madras to Mrs Akhi that the appellant
was HIV+.

Issue:
Whether the statement was true or not?
Whether it was published to the third party or not?
Whether the plaintiff suffered damage to his reputation or not?

Decision:
The defendant is held not liable.

Reasoning:
In this care, the statement was true, it was published and for this the
plaintiff suffered damage. But when circumstances demand disclosure of
patient’s health to save another it will not be defamation

Buckle v. Holmes (1916)

Fact:-
The defendant’s cat strayed from his land to that of the plaintiff and killed
fowls and pigeons there. The cat didn’t give earlier indication. The gate
through which the cat strayed was not broken.

Issue:
Whether the cat is a cattle or not?
Whether the cat gave any earlier instruction to do so or not?
Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not?

Decision:

27
The defendant was held not liable for trespass, nor was he liable under the
scienter rule for there was no evidence that the cat had given earlier
indications of a savage disposition.
Reasoning:

1) In this case, the cat was not cattle, because animals ferae naturae
even if tamed and trained are not cattle. So, for its tort the master is
not liable.
2) If the cat would be given instruction earlier, the defendant would be
held liable. Hence the cat was not instructed he is not liable.
3) In this case, the defendant does not commit any negligent act. If the
door through the cat strayed would unrepaired due to negligence of
the defendant he would be liable.

Ellis v. Leftus Iron company

Fact:-
The defendant’s horse injured the plaintiff’s mare by biting and killing her
through a fence belonging to the defendant.

Issue:
Whether there was any trespass by animals or not?
Whether the defendant was responsible for trespass or not?

Decision:
It was held that this was included as a trespass for which the defendant
was liable.

Reasoning:
Under the cattle trespass rule, the defendant was totally failed to perform
his obligation. So, here the defendant was held liable.

Theyer v. Purnell (1918)

Fact:-
The defendant’s sheep trespassed on plaintiff’s land. They develop scope
there and conveyed the same on the plaintiff’s sheep and all these were by

28
the government even though the defendant did not know about the
infection of this sheep with the disease.

Issue:
Whether the defendant was liable for the cattle trespass or not?
Whether the defendant was liable for damage due to trespass or not?

Decision:
The defendant was held liable for the loss due to trespass.

Reasoning:
In this case, due to trespass of cattle of the defendant, plaintiff’s sheep
were injured and the plaintiff suffered a great loss so, defendant was liable.

Hudson v Roberts (1857)

Fact:-
The defendant’s bull was irritated by a red handkerchief which the plaintiff
was wearing, ran at and injured the plaintiff.

Issue:
Whether the defendant’s bull was (under scienter rule) dangerous or not?
Whether the defendant had the actual knowledge of the viciousness or not?

Decision:
The defendant was held liable.

Reasoning:
As we know that bulls are animals mansutea naturae. Nevertheless the
defendant was held liable because the consequence and the occurrence
were reasonably foreseeable.

Rylands v Fletcher (1815)

Fact:-

29
A reservoir was caused by a constructed by an independent contractor
employed by B. a great damage caused to A because of the water escaping
from the reservoir caused to B.

Issue:
Whether some dangerous thing have been brought by a person his land or
not?
Whether the thing thus brought escaped or not?
Whether it was for the natural use of land or not?
Decision:
This case was the case of strict liability, so the defendant was held liable.

Reasoning:
The liability of owner could not arise unless there was negligence on the
part of the owner. Ponting v. Nooker- where the rule of strict liability was
not applicable due to the plaintiff’s own negligence. In present case, there
was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff. So defendant was held not
liable.

M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

Fact:-
The Supreme Court was dealing with the claims arising from the leakage
of the aleumn gas on December 4 and 6, 1985 from one of the units of
shriram foods and fertilizers Industries, in the city of Delhi belonging to
Delhi Cloth Mills Ltd. As a consequence of this, it was alleged that one
advocate practicing in this court had dead and several others were affected
by the same. The action was brought through a writ petition under Article
32 of the constitution by way of PIL.

Issue:

1. Where there is any negligence on the part of defendant or not?

2. Whether it is an inevitable accident or not?
Decision:

30
It was held that, the liability is absolute and the defendant was held liable.

Reasoning:
The leakage of gas was not caused by the negligence of the defendant’s
company. It may be called partially an inevitable accident but not
absolutely because there lies a possibility of an accident in any industry.
So, the defendants were held liable for absolute liability. Though there was
no negligence yet they were liable for the damage and injury.

31
 Re Polemis and Furness, withy and co. (1921)
Fact:-
The defendants chartered the plaintiff’s ship to carry cargo which included
petrol. The tins containing petrol leaked and thus there was a lot of petrol
vapor in the hold. While shifting cargo at a port, the defendant’s servant
negligently dropped a plank in the hold which cased sparks. The fire
occurs and destroyed the ship.

Issue:

1. Whether the act done by the defendant or not?

2. Whether there is a reasonable foreseeability or not?
3. Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not?
Decision:
The defendant was held liable.

Reasoning:
If the defendant could foresee some damage of any kind then he must be
answerable for all direct consequence of his act and thereby he would be
held liable.

Wagon Mound Case No. 1 (1961)

Fact:-
Appellant vessel was taking oil in Sydney Harbor at the Caltex Wharf. A
large quantity of the oil was allowed to spill into the harbor through the
carelessness of the servants of the appellants. The escaped oil was carried
by wind and the tide beneath the wharf owned by the respondents, who
were ship builders. Soon after the oil had spread itself on the water, the oil
caused fire and serious damage caused to the respondent. An action was
brought.

Issue:
32
 1. Whether the incident was foreseeable or not?
2. Whether there was any negligence on the part of the defendant or
not?
Decision:
The defendant was held not liable.

Reasoning:
In this case the damage to the plaintiff by fire was not reasonable
foreseeable. The essential factor in determining the liability for
consequences of a tortuous act of negligence, whether the damage is of
such kind a reasonable man should have foreseen. Tortuous liability is the
effective test for both and direct consequences test leads now have but no
never ending and insoluble problem of causation.

Hughes v. Lord Advocate (1963)

Fact:-
Employees of the post office opened a manhole in the street surrounded by
warning paraffin lamps. A boy of eight years accompanied by his uncle
aged ten brought one of the lamps into the shelter. He stumbled over the
lamp and the lamp fell into the manhole. An explosion followed and the
boy also fell into the manhole. He was seriously burnt.

Issue:
Was the injury different in kind from damages?
Could the explosion have reasonably been foreseen?

Decision:
The defendants were held liable.

Reasoning:
In this case it was foreseeable that the boys might play with lamps and
suffer injury from burns. But the explosion could not have been reasonably
foreseen. Even then, the defendants were held liable on the ground that the
injury, which actually resulted, was not different in kind from the injury,
which could reasonably have been foreseen. Thus, according to the test of
33
foreseeability, as interpreted in this case, the liability depends upon the
fact that the breach of duty to the plaintiff results in damage of the kind,
which could have been reasonably foreseen. The extent of damage and the
exact or precise manner of its occurrence need not be foreseeable.

34