TORTS

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

1. Gloucester Grammar School Case, 1410 –

Facts: In this case, the defendant started a school and collected reduced fee from students. As a result the
students in plaintiff’s school transferred to defendant’s school. Due to competition the plaintiff had to reduce
their fees from 40 Pence to 12 Pence per quarter. Consequently the plaintiff suffered loss and sued the
defendant.

Principle laid down: Damnum Sine Injuria

Judgement: The Court held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any remedy since the defendant in setting up the
school exercised his legal right without infringing the plaintiff’s legal right.
Hankford Justice, while delivering the judgement observed, “ If I have a mill and my neighbour builds
another mill thereby the profit of my mill is diminished, I shall have no action against him, although I am
damaged...but if a miller disturbs the water from going to my mill, or does any nuisance of the like sort, I shall
have such action as the law gives.”

2. Six Carpenters’ Case, 1610-

Facts: The defendants six carpenters consumed wine and bread in plaintiff’s inn and refused to pay bill for the
same.The plaintiff, owner of the inn, sued the defendants for Trespass ab Initio.

Pricniple laid down: Tresspass ab initio

Judgement: It was held that the defendants were not trespassers ab initio on the fround that-
(i) They had not entered the inn under an authority of law
(ii) They had not committed an act of misfeasance, but an act of non-feasance.

3. Ashby V/s White, 1702-

Facts: In this case, the plaintiff was a legally qualifies voter. The defendant, a Returning Officer, maliciously
prevented the plaintiff from exercising his franchise. The plaintiff sued the defendant even though the candidate,
to whom he intended to vote was declared elected.

Principle laid down: Injuria Sine Damnum

Judgement: The Court of Appeal held the defendant liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff. Holt CJ, observed
that , “ 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 a vain thing to imagine a rifgt without a remedy,
for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.”

4. Butterfield V/s Forester, 1809-

Facts: The defendant wrongfully obstructed a highway by erecting a pole acress it. The plaintiff was riding
violentlyat 8 O’ clock in the eveningcollided with the poleand was injured. The obstruction was visible from a
distance of 100 yards.The plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence.

Principle laid down: Contributory Negligence

 Judgement: The Court of Appeal through Lord Ellenborough CJ held the defendant not liable since the plaintiff
himself was instrumental for the accident.

5. Blyth V/s Birmingham Waterworks Co, 1850-

Facts: Plaintiff sued to recover for damages sustained when a water plug installed by the defendants sprung a
leak and doused the plaintiff’s house. The plug had been installed 25 years prior to the incident, which was
caused by the extraordinarily cold weather. Prior to the incident there had been no problems with the plug.

Principle laid down: Negligence

Judgement: It was held that Birmingham Waterworks Co. Had done everything a reasonable person would have
done in the situation.There was no negligence as there had been no breach of duty. It was simply stated an
accident.Baron Alderson quoted, “ Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided
upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs , would do, or doing something
which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

6. P & O Steam Navigation Co. V/s Secretary of State for India, 1861-

Facts: In this Case , the Plaintiff’s servant was travelling in a carriage, driven by two horses through the
Kidderpore Dockyard. Due to negligence of the defendant’s (Dockyard’s) servant, an iron-rod hit the plaintiff’s
servantand the horses were injured.the plaintiff sued the defendant.

Principle laid down: Sovereign: Non-Sovereign Dichotomy

Judgement: The Supreme Court, through Peacock CJ, did not agree with the contention of the defendant
pleading immunity on the ground that they were engaged in a ship repair process, managed by the East India
Comapny to which sovereign powers were accorded. The Court drew a line between sovereign power and non-
sovereign power. Though the Crown accorded the sovereign status to the East India Comapany, ship repairing
was a commercial activity which could be carried on aby a private person, and hence it is non-sovereign and the
defendant company was held liable.

7. Rylands V/s Fletcher, 1868-

Facts: The defendants employed an independent contractor for construction of a reservoir on his land for supply
of water to his mill. While constructing the reservoir, the workers found some old shafts and passages beneath
the reservoir. They filled them with mud and completed the work negligently. When the reservoir got filled with
water, it bursts through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjoining land. The plaintiff sued
the defendant.

Principle laid down: Strict Liability- Blackburn Justice evolved this principle on the basis of the underlying
principle ,” Sic utere tuo at alienum non laedas” which means ,” everyone must so use his own as not to damage
another.”

Judgement: Blackburn J. Evolved the rule of Strict Liability and held the employers liable irrespective of the fact
of existence of the relation of an employer and an independent contractor wherein the employer is not liable for the acts
of an independent contractor.

8. Nicholas V/s Marshland, 1875-

 Facts: In this case, the defendant had constructed three artificial lakes by damming up a natural stream. There
was an extraordinary rainfall and the excessive flow of water from defendant’s lakes washed away four bridges
that belong to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant.

Principle laid down: Act of God as a Justification for Tort

Judgement: The defendant was held not liable on the ground that the loss was due to the Act of God.

9. Davies V/s Mann, 1882-

Facts: The plaintiff left his ass with its legs tied in a narrow highway. The defendant’s wagon driven by horses
violently crashed into the ass violently and the ass was killed. The plaintiff sued the defendant.

Principle laid down: Doctrine of Last Opportunity

Judgement: The defendant who had the last opportunity to avoid the accident was held liable.

10. Smith V/s Baker, 1891-

Facts: The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to work on a drill for cutting rock. The crane which was taking
the stones from one side to the other was passing over the plaintiff’s head. A stone fell on the plaintiff’s head and
he was injured. The plaintiff sued the defendant.

Principle laid down: Mere knowledge as to the risk of danger is no consent.

Judgement: The House of Lords held the defendants liable on the ground that mere knowledge would not
constitute consent.
11. Bradford Corporation V/s Pickles, 1895-

Facts: In this case, the plaintiff, the Mayor, Bradford Corporation, attempted to purchase the defendant Pickle’s
site. As the defendant demanded high price, the plaintiff purchased another site nearbty and started their work.
The defendant for not purchasing their site, maliciously dug deep wells on their land. As a result plaintiff’s work
were dislocatedas the water got diminished and discoloured. The plaintiff Municipal Corporation sued the
defendant alleging that the defendant was causing inconvenience maliciously for not having purchased their
siteat a price demanded by him and requested the Court to issue injunction restraining the defendant’s act.

Principle laid down: Irrelevancy of Motive in Torts

Judgement: The House of Lords held that the plaintiff’s suit was not actionable and the defendant could not be
held liable on the ground that the defendant was exercising his lawful right though it was a malicious one.

12. Wilkinson V/s Downton, 1897-

Facts: In this case, the plaintiff suffered nervous shock and got seriously ill on being told falsely by way of
practical joke by defendant that the plaintiff’s husband had lost both the legs in an accident.The plaintiff sued the
defendant.

Principle laid down: Nervous Shock- Injury caused as a consequence of the shock through the medium of eye or
ear without any physical contact is actionable.

Judgement: Wright J. Held that an action would lie for injury by shock sustained through the medium of eye or
ear without direct contact.
13. Cassidy V/s Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd, 1929-

Facts: The plaintiff married Mr. Cassidy( also known as Corrigan). Mr. Cassidy used to stay with the plaintiff off
and on in her flat.The defendants, in their newspaper published the photograpf of the plaintiff along with her
husband, Mr. Cassidy and headed them as “Mr. Cassidy and Miss X, whose engagement has been
announced.”This publication implied that she had an illicit contact with Mr. Cassidy. Some female acquaintances
of the plaintiff gave evidence that they had formed a bad opinion on the plaintiff on seeing the publication. The
plaintiff sued the defendant.

Principle laid down: Innuendo- Latent and secondary may constitute defamationif the plaintiff understands such
meaning and it is immaterial whether the world at large understands it or not.

Judgement: The Court of Appeal held the defendant liable to pay 500 Pounds towards damages to plaintiff on the
ground that innuendo was proved.

14. Donoghue V/s Stevenson, 1932-

Facts: The plaintiff/appellant , while consuming ginger bear in a restaurant, found the decomposed body of a
snail in the remaining part. Consequently she suffered ill health and sued the manufacturer.The Trial Court
dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the House of Lords.

Principle laid down: Principle of Neighbourhood

Judgement: Lord Atkin J. Held the manufacturers liable.While delivering the judgement he observed that, “You
must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foreseewould likely to injure your
neighbour.” The expression ‘neighbour’ denotes every personwho is likely to be affected as a consequence of not
taking care.

15. Bourhill V/s Young,1943-

Facts: In the instant case, the plaintiff, a fishwife on seeing the blood as a result of an accident, suffered nervous
shock and gave birth to a stillborn child.The accident occurred when a motor cyclist drove negligently and
collided with a motor car.The motor cyclist died and the blood was left on the spot.The plaintiff sued the
representatives of the deceased motor cyclist.

Principle laid down: Principle of Foreseeability

Judgement: House of Lords held the defendants liable applying the principle of foreseeability though the
defendants did not owe duty of care towards the plaintiff.

16. King V/s Phillips, 1953-

Facts: The defendant’s servant was negligently driving the taxi back into a body on tricycle. The boy’s mother
viewed this through a medium of window from upstairs at a distance of 70-80 yards. She could only see the
tricycle and heard the screams of the boy but could not see the boy and suffered nervous shock.The boy and the
cyclist were slightly injured. An action to sue the defendants was taken.

Principle laid down: Principle of Reasonable Foreseeability

Judgement: It was held that the mother of the boy was wholly outside the area of reasonable apprehension and
the same is not foreseeable and the defendant was held not liable.
17. State of Rajasthan V/s Vidyawati, 1962-

Facts:The plaintiff’s husband died after being knocked down by a collector’s jeep which belong to the
defendant.She sued the defendant. The case ahd gone for appeal.

Principle laid down: State is immuned from the Vicarious liability of its servants only for Sovereign Functions and
not otherwise.

Judgement: The Supreme Court, through Sinha C.J. confirmed the decision of the Rajasthan High Court and held
the State liablewithout referring to the criteria of state’s immunity.

18. Kasturilal V/s State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965-

Facts: The plaintiff’s gold was seized by the Police under the suspicion of stolen property.It was kept in Police
Malkhana under the supervision of a Head Constable who misappropriated the same and fled to Pakistan. In an
action against the State, the Trial Court dismissed the and the case went for appeal.

Principle laid down: Sovereign immunity of the State.

Judgement: On appeal, the Supreme Court, through Gajendra Gadker, C.J., following the Sovereign: Non-
Sovereign Dichotomy upheld the decision on the ground that:
(i) The Police officials had acted in discharge of the statutory power; and
(ii) Power of Police officials in keeping the property in Police Malkhana was a sovereign power.

19. M.C. Mehta V/s Union of India, 1987-

Facts: This case originated in the aftermath of oleum gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilizers Ltd. Complex at
Delhi. This gas leak occurred soon after the infamous Bhopal Gas Leak and created a lot of panic in Delhi. One
person died in the incident and a lot were hospitalised.

Principle laid down: Principle of Absolute Liability

Judgement: Chief Justice Bhagwati showed his deep concern for the safety of the people of Delhi from the
leakage of hazardous substances. But the Supreme Court was of the opinion that total ban on the above industry
of public utility will impede the developmental activitie and would result in unemployment.Thus certain
conditions were formulated :
 The Central Pollution Control Board to appoint an inspector to inspect and see that pollution standards
set under the Water Act and the Air Act are followed.
 To constitute Worker’s Safety Committee.
 Industry to publicise the effects of chlorine and its appropriate treatment.
 Instruct and train its workers in plant safety through audio visual programmes, install loudspeaker to
alert neighbours in the event of leakage of gas.
 Workers to use safety devices like masks and belts.
 And that the workers of Shriram to furnish undertaking from Chairman of DCM Ltd. That in case of
escape of gas resulting in death or injury to workman or people living bin vicinity they will be personally
liable for payment of compensation of such death and injury.
 The Court also directed that Shriram industries would deposit Rs. 20 lakh and to furnish a bank
guarantee for Rs. 15 lakh for payment of compensation of cklaims of victims of oleum gas if there was
any escape of chlorine gas within three years from the date of order resulting in death or injury to any
workmen or public in the vicinity.

20. Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s Subhagwanti, 1966-

Facts: The Clock Tower situated in Chandni Chowk Centre, Delhi was under the exclusive control of the Municipal
Corporation. It was 80 years old. The Municipal Corporation, Delhi failed to demolish it though its normal life
time was 40-45 years. It collapsed, resulting in the death of a number of perons.

Principle laid down: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Judgement: The Supreme Court held the defendants liable for negligence on the ground that the Clock Tower
tells its own story.