Saksham Gaikwad

Roll Number – 2056

Semester II

Law Of Torts, MV Act and Consumer Protection

(Answer 1)

Material facts of the case:

• B is a stuntman who has worked for 2 decades in the film industry, and has suffered
multiple injuries, however, none of them were life threatening.
• R is a stuntmaster who has worked for 3 decades in the film industry.
• ABC is a production house that has hired R for action sequences.
• B was chosen by R for this scene, however, no written contract for the same was made.
• The action sequence included B falling on his back on a net, however, he fell head-first,
which tore the net and led to severe injuries to B, causing permanent disability.
• The net was found to have been damaged from a shoot before.
• Had B fallen on his back, the net would’ve remained intact.
• B was not aware of the condition of the net.

Issue:

Whether R and/or ABC shall be liable in a claim by B and his dependants?

Analysis:

Liability of R:

R is the stuntmaster in this scene, therefore, the equipment being used in the scene need to be
checked by R to ensure the safety of the stuntman, which was B in this scene. Therefore, we
can conclude that R had a duty of responsibility for ensuring B’s safety.

Now since there is a clear presence of duty and essentially a link between R and B, we use the
test of “But For”. It is a commonly used test in tort law that says an action has led to an injury,
but for the action, the injury wouldn’t have taken place. Here in the present scenario, had R
ensured the strength of the net and made sure that the net was completely safe for the action

Page 1 of 4
sequence by replacing the damaged net with a safe one, B wouldn’t have been injured in the
action scene. Also, R should’ve additionally ensured that there was no way for B to trip over
the ledge during the sequence, hence, this was an additional failure on the part of R.

Thus, we can conclude that R’s failure led to the injury and therefore, R is liable for the tort.

Liability of ABC:

The contract that we observe in the present case is a contract for service. We conclude this by
understanding the control R exercised in the complete action sequence. The complete
arrangements in the action sequence were done by R, thus, he assumes the position of a
contractor, rather than that of an employee.

And since liability in tort law is only applicable for contracts of service, rather than for contracts
for service, therefore, there is no liability for ABC in this factual matrix.

Conclusion:

R shall be held liable for the tortuous act by B and his dependants, however, ABC shall have
no liability in this scenario.

(Answer 2)

Material facts of the case:

• G is an engineer who has been an employee of DEF Pvt. Ltd. for 20 years.
• HMO Pvt. Ltd. is a builder from Kerala, who planned on building a twin apartment
building.
• HMO Pvt. Ltd. decides to hire G to lead their team after communicating the same with
DEF.
• For the construction, HMO Pvt. Ltd. has provided the workers to G, along with the
necessary equipment and materials.
• G, however, is allowed to take advice on construction activities by DEF and is also
finally paid by DEF (once they receive the payment from HMO).
• After 4 years, the towers are finally constructed.

Page 2 of 4
 • Post one year of the tower’s opening, it collapses and leads to the death of 12
individuals.

Issue:

Whether G and/or HMO and/or DEF are liable for the death of the 12 individuals?

Analysis:

DEF’s liability:

To understand DEF’s liability, we look at the case of Mersey Docks v. Coggins, wherein, it was
held that in the case of lending of servant, the test used is to determine who has the authority
to direct the servant to work in a specified manner. And it is to be proven by the original master
that the authority has shifted to the new master.

However, looking at the facts of the case and contractual terms, it was never mentioned that G
shall be directed by HMO to work in a certain way or manner, but rather, it was mentioned that
G shall take all types of advice related to construction activities directly from DEF.

Therefore, the authority over G still rests with DEF. And so, through the principle of vicarious
liability, DEF shall also be held liable for the acts of G.

HMO’s and G’s liability:

In the following situation, G is the lead engineer for the construction of the building, whereas,
all of the workers and required materials and equipment is supplied by HMO. G is also asked
to provide periodic reports on the construction to HMO.

When we look at the essentials of a tort, the first requisite is the presence of a wrongful act or
omission, herein, G’s omission of fulfilling his responsibility of being the lead engineer by
constructing a tower that is not safe for public’s use is observed. When G submits his report,
there should’ve been a mention of flaws in the construction of the building, since the presence
of such flaws was the reason behind its collapse. But no such flaws were reported by G to
HMO. Thereby, G fails to perform the duty imposed upon him by law.

And HMO in the present case is the supplier of the materials and equipment which were used
for the construction of the building. Since the building collapsed, it is evident that either the
material being used for its construction was the reason or the framework of the building was
faulty. However, the framework was designed by architect S, which was approved by HMO,

Page 3 of 4
which is enough to conclude that the framework certainly had no issues. Therefore, HMO has
omitted its duty.

And since the collapse of the building has led to the death of 12 individuals, G’s and HMO’s
acts have led to legal and actual damage.

Therefore, G and HMO shall be held liable in this scenario.

Conclusion:

In this case, DEF, G and HMO, all three of them shall be collectively held liable for the
commission of a tortuous act.

Page 4 of 4