LAW OF TORTS

Part – C: Salved answers

Feb/March 2013

1. X has a mill Y hinders the water from running to X mill. Can X claim for damages?
Facts of the case
Y obstructs the water from running to X Mill
Answer
The question is not self-explanatory. Whether water is flowing through the land of
Y or not. If yes, he can obstruct with embankments with in his property, but not
having right to obstruct from public land. Even if made embankments are made by
the Y with in his property, the water has tendency of escaping, when heavy pressure
occurs. Generally, the pressure may occur during rainy season and due to heavy rain
water may escape from Y property, embankments may cut down and the flooding may
happen in X mill, hence X can file damages as per Rayland v Fletcher case for strict
liability.

2. X school authorities left a child nursery student and boy a strayed from premises on
to a public road. Y lorry driver to avoid boy, struck to post and killed. Whether X is
liable or not?
Facts of the case
X school authorities left a child nursery student and boy a strayed from premises on
to a public road. Y lorry driver to avoid boy, struck to post and killed
Answer
Nursery students are just small kids and they do not know anything and where to
also. School authorities negligently left the nursery student; hence school
authorities are responsible for their negligence due to their negligence the nursery
student stayed on public road and Y lorry driver to avoid boy, struck to post and
killed. Hence X is liable.

3. Municipal authorities repaired a public road twice but due to rain, again road went
into repairs. Cyclist X riding during night hours felled and met with injuries. Whether
authorities liable for misfeasance or nonfeasance.
Facts of the case
Municipal authorities repaired a public road twice but due to rain, again road went
into repairs. Cyclist X riding during night hours felled and met with injuries.
Answer
As per legitimate duties Municipal authorities repaired a public road twice but due
to rain, again road went into repairs, hence there is no fault on Municipal Authorities
and there is no question of misfeasance or nonfeasance, hence Municipal Authorities
were not responsible.
4. X purchased a ticket to watch cinema show was forcibly removed from his seat on
mistaken belief that X did not purchase ticket. Whether manager of theatre is liable
or not?
Facts of the case
X purchased a ticket to watch cinema show and he was forcibly removed from his
seat on mistaken belief that X did not purchase ticket.
Answer
Here purchase of a ticket is a contract to watch movie between X and theatre
management, when he was forcibly removed from theatre, it amounts breach of
contract. Hence X can sue the management for breach of contract.

August/September 2013
5. X has saving account in SBH- Ramakrishna Puram branch, Nagol. Bank Manger refused
to honour cheque presented by X, though sufficient funds are in the X Account-
whether Bank Manger liable or not?
Facts of the case
X has saving account in SBH, Ramakrishna Puram branch, Nagol. Bank Manger refused
to honour cheque presented by X, though sufficient funds are in the X Account
Answer
According to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Act, the dishonour
of cheque is a criminal offence and is punishable by imprisonment up to two years or
with monetary penalty or with both. In this instant Bank manager refused to honour
cheque presented by X, if the cheque would have given on third party name the X
would have faced action under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Act.
Hence Bank Manger liable for dishonouring self-drawl cheque of X.

6. X a firm member of jewellers of Hyderabad left to Bangalore, for selling gold silver.
He was taken to custody by Bangalore police on suspicion. Later on enquiry left him
– whether X has a remedy or not?
Facts of the case
X a firm member of jewellers of Hyderabad left to Bangalore, for selling gold silver.
He was taken to custody by Bangalore police on suspicion. Later on enquiry left him
Answer
The Bangalore Police personnel have taken to custody on suspicion and after enquiry
they were left free and no case was registered and hence Police personal not held
liable.
7. X defendant chased with Axe a servant boy Ramu of the plaintiff Y. Ramu to protect
himself entered shop premises of Y, knocked down Cask of wine. Whether X is liable
or not?
Facts of the case
X defendant chased with Axe a servant boy Ramu of the plaintiff Y. Ramu to protect
himself entered shop premises of Y, knocked down Cask of wine
 Answer
Axe is weapon, no owner has right to chase with Axe on a servant, which amounts
Assault. When a creates his act by an apprehension in the mind of the other that
he is going to commit battery against him, the wrong of assault is completed and
hence with an apprehension servant boy Ramu of the plaintiff Y. Ramu to protect
himself entered shop premises of Y, knocked down Cask of wine. Hence X is liable
for assault, which has resulted into knocked down Cask of wine.

8. X was suffering with dreadful disease Aids. Y family doctor disclosed this fact to Z
relative of X. Whether Doctor is liable or not?
Facts of the case
X was suffering with dreadful disease Aids. Y family doctor disclosed this fact to Z
relative of X
Answer
Mr. X Vs. Hospital Z – Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases: Judges are not bound to
disclose the name of rape victims under Section 228-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section- 34 of the HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Act,2017 which came into
force after this case has inscribed this rule of keeping parties name anonymous. The
parties should request the court to replace their name with a pseudonym and the
court is under an obligation to do a speedy trial ‘in camera’. People are restrained
from publishing matter that will disclose the identity of the person.
In terms of Mr. X Vs. Hospital Z Doctor is liable discloser of the disease to relatives
of X.
August/September 2014
9. X while driving scooter over a manhole on the public road met with fatal accident and
died. Whether Municipal authorities are liable or not?
Facts of the case
X defendant chased with Axe a servant boy Ramu of the plaintiff Y. Ramu to protect
himself entered shop premises of Y, knocked down Cask of wine
Answer
X while driving scooter over a manhole on the public road met with fatal accident and
died. As per statutory provisions of the Municipal Acts, the concerned Municipal
Authority is responsible for maintenance of Manholes and no manhole shall be kept
open. In this instant case due to keeping open of manhole X while driving scooter
over a manhole on the public road met with fatal accident and died, hence Municipal
Authorities are liable.

10. X a stranger blocked the water pipes of the wash basin and opened the tap. Over
lowing of water damaged the plaintiffs’ goods. Whether defendant is made liable?
Facts of the case
X a stranger blocked the water pipes of the wash basin and opened the tap. Over
lowing of water damaged the plaintiffs’ goods.
 Answer
In Rickards v. Lothian, 1913 AC 263, where some malicious third person blocked up
the water pipe of a lavatory basin on X’s premises and thereby flooded those of Y.
X was held not liable.
In this case X a stranger blocked the water pipes of the wash basin and opened the
tap. Over lowing of water damaged the plaintiffs’ goods, it means the
stranger(defendant) is identified, once stranger is identified plaintiff can initiate
action against defendant.

11. Y issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000, in favour of Co-operative society. Later Y

instructed the bank to stop payment. But bank honoured the cheque. Whether Y can
claim compensation or not?
Facts of the case
Y issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000, in favour of Co-operative society. Later Y
instructed the bank to stop payment. But bank honoured the cheque.
Answer
In this instant case after issuing cheque, Y instructed the bank to stop payment. But
bank honoured the cheque. Even after issuing cheque, instructions can be given to
the concerned Bank to stop payment, if the Bank makes payment even after receiving
instructions, the Bank is liable and Y can claim compensation.

12. X a woman having three children approached doctor for her sterilization under state
family planning programme. Later X after undergoing operation also gave birth to a
fourth child. Whether Doctor and State are liable or not?
Facts of the case
Y issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000, in favour of Co-operative society. Later Y
instructed the bank to stop payment. But bank honoured the cheque.
Answer
X a woman having three children approached doctor for her sterilization under state
family planning programme. Later X after undergoing operation also gave birth to a
fourth child.
State of Punjab v Shiv Ram & others [2005] SC 447 (25 August 2005) the Supreme
Court held that “We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that merely because a
woman having undergone a sterilization operation became pregnant and delivered a
child, the operating surgeon or his employer cannot be held liable for compensation
on account of unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child.”
In view of the above Supreme Court decision neither doctor or State are liable.

Feb/March 2015
13. A tress passer knew the presence of a fierce dog in B’s house. A entered the
premises and was attacked by the dog, he sustained injuries. Whether B is liable or
not?
 Facts of the case
A tress passer knew the presence of a fierce dog in B’s house. A entered the
premises and was attacked by the dog, he sustained injuries.
Answer
A tress passer knew the presence of a fierce dog in B’s house and knowingly entered
the premises and was attacked by the dog and sustained injuries. In this instant case
“Volenti non fit injuria” applies, hence B is not liable.

14. X was travelling by RTC bus, resting her elbow on the window sill. Truck coming from
opposite side hit her and as a result she met with injuries, whether RTC is liable or
not?
Facts of the case
X was travelling by RTC bus, resting her elbow on the window sill. Truck coming from
opposite side hit her and as a result she met with injuries.
Answer
While traveling either in Bus or Car one supposed to be not rest his/her elbow on
the window sill. If rests elbow on the window sill which may result into injury when
opposite direction crosses the vehicle. Generally, in RTC buses such safe instructions
will be displayed and sometimes the concerned conductor will also inform the
passengers. If a passenger resting their elbow on the window sill “Volenti non fit
injuria” applies, hence RTC is not liable.

15. Z lured a young girl to have sexual relations under the grab of promise to marry.
Later girl become pregnant; X refused to marry. What is the remedy available to
girl?
Facts of the case
Z lured a young girl to have sexual relations under the grab of promise to marry.
Later girl become pregnant; X refused to marry.
Answer
Z lured a young girl to have sexual relations under the grab of promise to marry and
when the girl become pregnant; X refused to marry it is nothing but fraud. It means
Z has fraudulently had sexual relation with girl and hence liable for criminal actions.

16. X created artificial lakes on his land due to extraordinary rainfall, embankments of
the lakes gave away and damaged the four bridges of Y. whether X is liable or not?
Facts of the case
X created artificial lakes on his land due to extraordinary rainfall, embankments of
the lakes gave away and damaged the four bridges of Y.
Answer
In the case of Nichols v. Marshland [(1876)2ExD1] the defendant has a number of
artificial lakes on his land. Extraordinary rain such a shad never been witnessed in
living memory caused the banks of the lakes to burst and the escaping water carried
 away four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff's bridges
were swept by an act of God and the defendant was not liable.
In terms of Nichols v. Marshland [(1876)2ExD1] X is not liable.

August/September 2015
17. X Carpenter working in a shed, negligently lighted the pipe, which caused fire to
property of master. Whether X is liable or not?
Facts of the case
X Carpenter working in a shed, negligently lighted the pipe, which caused fire to
property of master.
Answer
As per vicariously liability Master is liable for the fault committed by the servant.
Any act done by the servant in the course of his or her employment, makes the
master liable for such act, besides obviously making the servant liable. In this instant
case Carpenter is liable. if precautionary measures are informed by the Master, the
Master is liable otherwise X is liable, if X knows and negligently acted.

18. X master instructed Y his servant to carry carboy containing Nitric Acid. Y has no
knowledge about the contents of carboy. Due to the burst of the carboy the servant
met with severe burn injuries. Whether master is liable or not?
Facts of the case
X master instructed Y his servant to carry carboy containing Nitric Acid. Y has no
knowledge about the contents of carboy. Due to the burst of the carboy the servant
met with severe burn injuries.
Answer
Y has no knowledge about the contents of carboy and as per instructions of X Master
Y his servant to carried the carboy due to the burst of the carboy the servant met
with severe burn injuries. Hence as per vicariously liability X master is liable for the
burst of carboy.

19. X purchased a new car for the private use of the director of the company. Later
found the defects of the car. Whether compliant is admissible under consumer
protection act?
Facts of the case
X purchased a new car for the private use of the director of the company. Later
found the defects of the car.
Answer
X purchased a new car for the private use and later found the defects of the car
and hence X can file a case under Consumer Protection Act before District Consumer
Forum for redressal and the case is liable for admission for selling defective product
to consumer for product liability.
20. X knowingly the car driver Y was drunken preferred to travel with him. Due to
negligent driving of car accident took place and Y died X met with severe injuries. X
filed a case against legal heirs of Y. explain whether volenti fit injuria defence is
available for legal representatives of deceased
Facts of the case
X knowingly the car driver Y was drunken preferred to travel with him. Due to
negligent driving of car accident took place and Y died X met with severe injuries. X
filed a case against legal heirs of Y
Answer
In the case of Ashton v. Turnerandan & others, the claimant was injured when the
defendant crashed the car in which he was a passenger. The crash occurred after
they both had committed a burglary and the defendant, who had been drinking, was
driving negligently in an attempt to escape. Justice Ewbank dismissed the claim
holding that as a matter of public policy the law would not recognize a duty of care
owed by one participant in crime to another. He also added that even if there was a
duty of care the claimant had willingly accepted the risk and knowingly sat in the car
with the defendant.
X known that Y car driver was drunken and preferred to travel with him, that is
knowingly in drunken condition there is every possibility of rash driving or careless
driving will happen, which may result into an accident. Hence the maxim ”volenti fit
injuria’” will be applicable in this instant case and Y has no right to claim compensation
from the legal representatives of deceased in similar terms of case of Ashton v.
Turnerandan & others.

Feb/March 2016
21. A driver of a goods truck in contravention of a statutory provisions gave lift to an
unauthorised passenger in the truck. Due to the driver’s negligence the passenger
was killed in the accident. Whether the owner of the truck can be held liable?
Facts of the case
A driver of a goods truck in contravention of a statutory provisions gave lift to an
unauthorised passenger in the truck. Due to the driver’s negligence the passenger
was killed in the accident.
Answer
The agent is liable because he has done the wrongful act. The principal is liable
vicariously because of the principal-agent relationship between the two. As per
Vicarious Liability both can be made liable for the same wrongful act. They are
considered to be joint tortfeasors and their liability is joint and several. In such a
case the plaintiff has a choice either to sue the principal or the agent or both.
In this instant case the truck driver is agent of the truck owner, hence both truck
driver and owner are responsible as per Vicarious Liability.

22. Y was travelling by Railways. While crossing of another train, his elbow at the window
was got injured. Whether Railways are liable or not?
 Facts of the case
Y was travelling by Railways. While crossing of another train, his elbow at the window
was got injured.
Answer
While traveling either in Bus or Car or Rail one supposed to be not rest his/her elbow
on the window sill. If elbow on the window sill, which may result into injury when
opposite direction vehicle crosses the vehicle. Generally, in Railway coaches such
safe instructions will be displayed. If a passenger resting their elbow on the window
sill “Volenti non fit injuria” applies, hence Railways is not liable.

23. A parked his car by the roadside and left a dog inside the car. The dog jumped about
and smashed a glass panel. A splinter from the glass injured B while he was walking
past the car. Is there any negligence on part of A? Discuss.
Facts of the case
A parked his car by the roadside and left a dog inside the car. The dog jumped about
and smashed a glass panel. A splinter from the glass injured B while he was walking
past the car.
Answer
In Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington [1932], the defendant left his car in the street
and his dog inside. That dog was still calm and placid. The dog, which had been barking
and leaping about in the vehicle, broke a glass panel while the plaintiff was walking
by the car, and a fragment of the glass hit the left eye of the plaintiff, which had
to be removed. It was concluded in an act for damages that the plaintiff could not
be compensated as a motor car with a dog in it was not a matter that was risky in
itself, and there was no error in not exercising caution against it because the
accident was so improbable.
In terms of Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington [1932] there is no negligence on part of A.

24. X was imprisoned without his knowledge by Y. whether Y can be held liable for “false
imprisonment”?
Facts of the case
X was imprisoned without his knowledge by Y. whether Y can be held liable for “false
imprisonment”.
Answer

When a person’s way is restricted unlawfully from all possible directions to prevent
him/her from moving in a direction for some period, however short, it is called false
imprisonment.

In Ram Pyare Lal v. Om Prakash, 1977 Cri LJ 1984, where the plaintiff, a
respectable advocate, was arrested and detained by two police officers of a police
station as a proclaimed offender and absconder without verifying the wrong entries
found in the police registers, the officers and the Union of India were made liable
 to pay damages. On similar terms of Ram Pyare Lal v. Om Prakash, 1977 Cri LJ
1984 Y can be held liable for false imprisonment.

March/April 2017 (backlog)

25. X published a mistaken statement that Y has given birth to twins. Actually, Y is just
married 2 months back. Explain whether X is liable for any tort or not?
Facts of the case
X published a mistaken statement that Y has given birth to twins. Actually, Y is just
married 2 months back.
Answer
Y is just married 2 months back, the statement published by X is that Y has given
birth to twins. Certainly, the statement made by X is character assassination of Y
and hence it is a tort of defamation.

26. A Doctor left a mop inside the abdomen of Y during an operation. Y died due to
infection. Discuss whether A is liable or not?
Facts of the case
A Doctor left a mop inside the abdomen of Y during an operation. Y died due to
infection.
Answer
In Collins v. Hertfordshire C.C., 1947 KB 598, the hospital authority was held
liable for the negligence of a junior house surgeon, a student, for injecting a patient
with cocaine, a dangerous drug, instead of procaine, a harmless local anaesthetic as
the result of which the patient died.
The Doctor negligently left a mop inside the abdomen of Y during an operation and
due to infection Y died. Hence in terms of Collins v. Hertfordshire C.C., 1947 KB
598 Doctor is liable for his negligence.

27. X has given his car to Y for a drive, Y commits an accident. Discuss whether X is
liable or not?
Facts of the case
X has given his car to Y for a drive, Y commits an accident.
Answer
When an agent commits a tort in the course of performance of his duty as an agent,
the liability of the principal arises for such a wrongful act. The agent is liable because
he has done the wrongful act. The principal is liable vicariously because of the
principal-agent relationship between the two.
In this instant case X has given his car to Y for a drive, Y commits an accident. Hence
Y is an agent to drive X’s car, when Y met with an accident both X & Y are vicariously
held liable.

28. Y has written a libellous letter addressed to X, knowing that letter will be opened by
the clerk. Discuss whether it amounts to defamation or not?
 Facts of the case
Y has written a libellous letter addressed to X, knowing that letter will be opened by
the clerk.
Answer
When a letter addressed to another with slanderous language as long as the letter
was not seen/read by third persion it does not amount defamation, but Y has written
a libellous letter addressed to X, knowing that letter will be opened by the clerk.
Hence the letter addressed by Y to X amounts defamation in nature.

March/April 2017 (regular)

29. A goat entered the neighbour’s house and ate poisonous berries, which were hanging
from the plants. Within an hour the goat died. State whether the owner of the house
is responsible for the death of the goat?
Facts of the case
A goat entered the neighbour’s house and ate poisonous berries, which were hanging
from the plants. Within an hour the goat died.
Answer
The goat trespassed into neighbour’s house and ate poisonous berries. Even if the
neighbour displays a board with caution also the goat will trespass and eat the
poisonous berries. It is the responsible of the goat owner to keep his goat tied or
kept within his property. Hence the neighbour not responsible.

30. A, B, C and D purchased a land jointly. Without the consent of B, C and D, A sold the
land to one person. The same land was again sold by B to another person. The person
who purchases first from A filed a case against all the four. State whether all the
four are liable or not? If so, how?
Facts of the case
A, B, C and D purchased a land jointly. Without the consent of B, C and D, A sold the
land to one person. The same land was again sold by B to another person. The person
who purchases first from A filed a case against all the four.
Answer
As per vicarious liability the relationship between partners resembles that of an
agent and a principal, therefore, the liability here is also derived from the principle
of the rule of agency. Thus, in the case of a partnership firm, for the wrongs
committed by one partner, all the other partners are equally liable for the act, as
the guilty partner. The liability of each partner in a firm is joint and several.
In this instant case A, B, C and D purchased a land jointly. Without the consent of
B, C and D, A sold the land to one person. The same land was again sold by B to
another person. Hence as per vicarious liability all four are severally liable for their
partners mischief and the per person who purchases first from A rightly filed a case
against all the four.
31. A, a doctor who was going to attend a conference was stopped by a Police officer
presuming that he is a suspect. He was questioned for an hour and then permitted to
go. Meanwhile he missed his flight. He filed a case against and the police officer for
damage caused to him. State whether he can succeed or not?
Facts of the case
A, a doctor who was going to attend a conference was stopped by a Police officer
presuming that he is a suspect. He was questioned for an hour and then permitted to
go. Meanwhile he missed his flight. He filed a case against and the police officer for
damage caused to him.
Answer
The police personal has the authority to take the suspects into their custody and
after enquiring and confirming that the person is not the suspected person whom
they are searching and releases from their custody. In this instant case also after
confirming that the person is not the suspected whom they are searching and
releases from their custody and not detained with false imprisonment. Hence the
Doctor will not succeed in his case, though he has missed his flight.

32. A child while going back from school to her house to played with a dog which belongs
to the neighbour. One day the dog had bitten her. Who is responsible for injury?
Whether the owner is responsible or not?
Facts of the case
A child while going back from school to her house to played with a dog which belongs
to the neighbour. One day the dog had bitten her.
Answer
As per statement the child while going back from school to her house to played with
a dog which belongs to the neighbour and is daily routine play and might be known to
child’s parents. It is the duty of parents to caution the child for playing with dog,
the neighbour might never watches what is happening, hence the owner of the dog is
not liable.

May/June 2017
33. Mr. X dug a deep well in his own land intercepting the flow of ground water. As a
result, the volume of the water in his neighbour’s well has greatly diminished and
become dry. Thereby the neighbour sustained great loss. Is it actionable tort?
Decide.
Facts of the case
Mr. X dug a deep well in his own land intercepting the flow of ground water. As a
result, the volume of the water in his neighbour’s well has greatly diminished and
become dry. Thereby the neighbour sustained great loss.
Answer
Mr. X has dug a deep well within his property for ground water and never trespassed
into neighbour’s land and hence not actionable. But as per Telangana Water, Tree and
 Land act (TS WALTA for Telangana State similarly AP WALTA for the State of AP)
it is prerequisite to obtain permission from Revenue Authorities for digging well, if
such prerequisite permissions are essential, then definitely its tort for not obtaining
such permission.

34. Mr. X constructed artificial water reservoir which was fed by a natural stream.
There was a breach of reservoir due to a very heavy rainfall which was quite
exceptional lands belongs to Mr. Y were damaged. Decide the liability of Mr. X.
Facts of the case
Mr. X constructed artificial water reservoir which was fed by a natural stream.
There was a breach of reservoir due to a very heavy rainfall which was quite
exceptional lands belongs to Mr. Y were damaged.
Answer
In the case of Nichols v. Marshland [(1876)2ExD1] the defendant has a number of
artificial lakes on his land. Extraordinary rain such a shad never been witnessed in
living memory caused the banks of the lakes to burst and the escaping water carried
away four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff's bridges
were swept by an act of God and the defendant was not liable.
In terms of Nichols v. Marshland [(1876)2ExD1] Mr. X is not liable.

35. The driver of an omnibus allowed the conductor to drive the bus and in so doing the
conductor injured a pedestrian. Is the owner of the bus liable to pay injured
pedestrian? Discuss.
Facts of the case
The driver of an omnibus allowed the conductor to drive the bus and in so doing the
conductor injured a pedestrian.
Answer
In the case of Beard v. London General Omnibus Co. (1900) 2 QB 530 held that
– At the end of the journey, the driver of a bus went to take his dinner. During the
temporary absence of the driver, the conductor drove the bus to reverse it in the
direction of the next journey and in that process caused an accident thereby injuring
the plaintiff. It was not the conductor’s duty to drive the bus. Since driving was not
the kind of act which the conductor was authorized to do. The conductor was acting
outside the course of his employment when he caused the accident. Therefore, the
employer i.e., the defendant co. was held not liable.
Upon a perusal of the aforesaid cases, it becomes clear that the liability of the
employer arises only when the following two conditions are fulfilled: -

(a) The wrongdoer is his servant; and

(b)The wrongful act has been committed in the course of employment of the servant.

In this instant case terms of Beard v. London General Omnibus Co. (1900) 2 QB
530 case will made applicable, hence the conductor was acting outside the course of
 his employment when he caused the accident. Therefore, the owner of omnibus bus
was held not liable.

36. A tourist passenger, knowing that the cab driver was drunk and hence chances of
accident were great, chose to travel by that cab. He was injured in an accident
caused by the drunkenness of the driver. Is the injured passenger entitled to claim
damages? Discuss.
Facts of the case
A tourist passenger, knowing that the cab driver was drunk and hence chances of
accident were great, chose to travel by that cab. He was injured in an accident
caused by the drunkenness of the driver.
Answer
In the case of Ashton v. Turnerandan & others, the claimant was injured when the
defendant crashed the car in which he was a passenger. The crash occurred after
they both had committed a burglary and the defendant, who had been drinking, was
driving negligently in an attempt to escape. Justice Ewbank dismissed the claim
holding that as a matter of public policy the law would not recognize a duty of care
owed by one participant in crime to another. He also added that even if there was a
duty of care the claimant had willingly accepted the risk and knowingly sat in the car
with the defendant.

Tourist passenger known that the cab driver was drunken and preferred to travel
with him, that is knowingly in drunken condition there is every possibility of rash
driving or careless driving will happen, which may result into an accident. Hence the
maxim ”volenti fit injuria’” will be applicable in this instant case and hence tourist
passenger has no right to claim damages in similar terms of case of Ashton v.
Turnerandan & others.

September/October 2017
37. A published a statement which damaged the reputation of a person who died 10 years
ago. State whether it amounts to tort.
Facts of the case
A published a statement which damaged the reputation of a person who died 10 years
ago.
Answer
Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation
of another, he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference with the
property. A man's reputation is his property, and if possible, more valuable, than
other property.
Essentials of Defamation
1) The statement must be defamatory;
2) The said statement must refer to the plaintiff;
3) The statement must be published
 In this instant case sl. No. 2 & 3 of the essentials of Defamation fulfilled, but Second
(2) essential is that it must refer to the plaintiff and hence deceased person cannot
file defamation suit and on behalf no one has right to file such suite.

38. A drunken driver driving the car at a high speed caused the death of a car driver
and a passenger by on the road. Who is responsible for the death of the passenger?
Whether the legal representative of the deceased driver or the owner of the car?
Who will pay the damages?
Facts of the case
A drunken driver driving the car at a high speed caused the death of a car driver
and a passenger by on the road.
Answer
When an agent commits a tort in the course of performance of his duty as an agent,
the liability of the principal arises for such a wrongful act. The agent is liable because
he has done the wrongful act. The principal is liable vicariously because of the
principal-agent relationship between the two.
In this instant case driver is the agent of the owner of the car and in accident both
car driver and passenger were demised, hence the owner of the car is vicariously for
payment of damages though the deceased driver also responsible for accident.

39. A lady was arrested believing that she was aiding a group which against the state
immediately she was released after confirming that she was not the lady whom they
were searching. State what wrong did the police commit. Advice the lady.
Facts of the case
A lady was arrested believing that she was aiding a group which against the state
immediately she was released after confirming that she was not the lady whom they
were searching.
Answer
The police personal has the authority to take the suspects into their custody and
after enquiring, if found the person is not the suspected person for whom they are
searching releases from their custody. In this instant case though lady was arrested
after confirming that she was not the lady whom they were searching and not
detained with false imprisonment. Hence, she cannot have any legal remedy.

40. There was one plus one offer in a shop. One lady purchase two woollen cloths for her
son and daughter. After wearing they suffered skin disease. Advice the woman on
what she should do?
Facts of the case
There was one plus one offer in a shop. One lady purchase two woollen cloths for her
son and daughter. After wearing they suffered skin disease.
 Answer
As per provisions of Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 “Product liability"
means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, of any product
or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective
product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services relating thereto;
A complainant can bring a product liability action against any product manufacturer
or service provider or a seller in case any harm is suffered by him due to a defective
product or service. A product manufacturer will be held liable under the Act in case
the product has a manufacturing defect, defective in design, does not follow the
manufacturing specifications, does not conform to implied warranty and does not
contain adequate instructions for proper usage of the product.

In this instant case the lady has purchased woollen cloths for her son and daughter
are harmed after wearing and they suffered skin disease. Hence the lady can file a
case against manufacturer and seller for damages on product liability under the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

June 2018
41. The plaintiff was a student of the X university who had applied for revaluation. The
results were declared by the University after an unduly long delay. He claimed
damages for mental distress and Psychiatric trauma. Is the university liable, if so
under which for the plaintiff will get relief?
Facts of the case
The plaintiff was a student of the X university who had applied for revaluation. The
results were declared by the University after an unduly long delay.
Answer
A student applied for revaluation in a university, due to long delay of revaluation
results, he could not proceed further studies. What are the legal remedies against
university available?
In University of Kerala vs Molly Francis AIR 2005 Ker 11, 2004 (2) KLT 1157, Kerala
High Court upheld the trail court orders of the trail court. Trail court held as “After
framing necessary issues the trial Court decreed the suit awarding an amount of Rs.
14,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% as damages. The trial Court found that the
university took 8 months in conducting the process of revaluation and informing the
results to the candidate. It was found that a wrong valuation is a wrong done to the
candidate and when the candidate seeks revaluation and the publication of the result
of revaluation is unduly delayed it will lead to loss of one precious academic year and
therefore the plaintiff is entitled to realise compensation from the university. The
trial Court awarded Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony. For loss of one year and for
preparation and writing of September examination the trial court awarded Rs.
3,000/-and Rs. 1,000/- respectively’
 On similar terms of Kerala vs Molly Francis AIR 2005 Ker 11, 2004 (2) KLT 1157, the
university is liable in declaring revaluation results with long delay and plaintiff is
entitled similar relief.

42. An Inference House Surgeon negligently injected the patient with cocaine instead
of procaine which is a mild harmless local anaesthesia. The patient died because of
the cocaine injection. Is Hospital liable?
Facts of the case
An Inference House Surgeon negligently injected the patient with cocaine instead
of procaine which is a mild harmless local anaesthesia.
Answer
In Collins v. Hertfordshire C.C., 1947 KB 598, the hospital authority was held liable
for the negligence of a junior house surgeon, a student, for injecting a patient with
cocaine, a dangerous drug, instead of procaine, a harmless local anaesthetic as the
result of which the patient died.
The Doctor negligently injected the patient with cocaine instead of procaine which
is a mild harmless local anaesthesia and the patient died because of the cocaine
injection. Hence in terms of Collins v. Hertfordshire C.C., 1947 KB 598 Doctor is
liable for his negligence and vicariously the Hospital will also hold liable.

43. The defendant obstructed the entrance of the plaintiff’s Book shop there by causing
the customers to take a long route to come to the shop. Is defendant liable?
Facts of the case
The defendant obstructed the entrance of the plaintiff’s Book shop thereby causing
the customers to take a long route to come to the shop.
Answer
When a person’s way is restricted unlawfully from all possible directions to prevent
him/her from moving in a direction for some period, however short, it is called false
imprisonment.
In the case of Bird v. Jones (1845), a part of the public footway was wrongfully
closed by the defendants and they were allowing only those who made payment to
use the footway. The footway led to a place from where the rowing could be seen.
The plaintiff was prevented to go without making payments and he remained there
for about an hour and a half. Subsequently, he brought an action for false
imprisonment against the defendant. However, since the plaintiff was at liberty to
go back there was no case of false imprisonment. The restraint imposed was only
with respect to a particular direction. Once there is a total restraint on a person’s
liberty the duration of restraint is immaterial.
In terms of Bird v. Jones (1845) defendant is not liable as such defendant was not
totally restrained the plaintiff to approach the Book Shop.
44. The currency notes and jewellery ornaments kept in the Bank’s locker were damaged
by termites and white ants. Is the Bank liable under consumer protection Act?
Facts of the case
The currency notes and jewellery ornaments kept in the Bank’s locker were damaged
by termites and white ants.
Answer
As per RBI regulations the bank shall not be liable for any damage and/or loss of
contents of locker arising from natural calamities or Acts of God like earthquake,
floods, lightning and thunderstorm or any act that is attributable to the sole fault
or negligence of the customer. And it is the responsibility of banks to take all steps
for the safety and security of the premises in which the safe deposit vaults are
housed. It has the responsibility to ensure that incidents like fire, theft/ burglary/
robbery, dacoity, building collapse do not occur in the bank’s premises due to its own
shortcomings, negligence and by any act of omission/commission. As banks cannot
claim that they bear no liability towards their customers for loss of contents of the
locker, in instances where loss of contents of locker are due to incidents mentioned
above or attributable to fraud committed by its employee(s), the banks’ liability shall
be for an amount equivalent to one hundred times the prevailing annual rent of the
safe deposit locker.
Generally, the documents and valuable ornaments will be kept in Bank lockers and
currency notes will be deposited in their Bank accounts, but not in lockers. Hence
the Bank is not liable for the damages caused due to termites and white ants as per
the RBI regulations. However, the Bank locker service comes under Consumer
protection Act, hence the plaintiff can file a case against Bank for their maintenance
and damages.
August/September 2018
45. The plaintiff’s servant joined the service of the defendant who telegraphed to the
plaintiff saying “Mr. Ram the servant has joined us to do our work. Please send her
possessions and the many you borrowed and also her wages”. Is the statement made
by the defendant defamatory? Explain?
Facts of the case
The plaintiff’s servant joined the service of the defendant who telegraphed to the
plaintiff saying “Mr. Ram the servant has joined us to do our work. Please send her
possessions and the money you borrowed and also her wages”.
Answer
The contents of the Telegram are as under
 Plaintiff’s servant joined the defendant’s service
 Send the belongings of plaintiff
 Send the money borrowed by the plaintiff including outstanding wages

The telegram sent by the defendant is open one and the person, who telegraphed
and the person who has delivered the telegram knows the contents of the
 telegram. The first two parts are not in nature of defamatory, but the last part
of the telegram “send the money borrowed by the plaintiff including outstanding
wages’ certainly affects the reputation of the plaintiff. Hence the content of
the telegram sent by the defendant is of defamatory in nature.

46. The plaintiff is a heart patient. The doctor’s advised him to be away from any noise
and to take rest. At regular intervals there were sounds of Bell ringing in the
neighbourhood church and he used to get disturbed. He filed case on the authorities
for nuisance. Is the church authorities liable for nuisance?
Facts of the case
The plaintiff is a heart patient. The doctor’s advised him to be away from any noise
and to take rest. At regular intervals there were sounds of Bell ringing in the
neighbourhood church and he used to get disturbed. He filed case on the authorities
for nuisance.
Answer
Being a heart patient, the plaintiff is required to be away from any noise and to take
rest, but at regular intervals there were sounds of Bell ringing in the neighbourhood
church and he used to get disturbed.
Trespass is interference with a person's possession of land. In nuisance, there is
interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land. Such interference with the
use or enjoyment could be there without any interference with the possession. For
example, a person by creating offensive smell, or noise on his own land could cause
nuisance to his neighbour.
Nuisance as a tort means an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment
of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The church authorities liable for
such nuisance of sounds made with Bell ringing at regular intervals.

47. Defendant is a animal lover and he had a passion of collecting different species of
snakes. One snake escaped into the plaintiff’s property and bitten him. Is the
defendant liable for snake bite?
Facts of the case
Defendant is a animal lover and he had a passion of collecting different species of
snakes. One snake escaped into the plaintiff’s property and bitten him.
Answer
As per Rayland v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL Essentials required for application of
Rylands v. Fletcher’s rule –
For the application of the rule, three essentials are required: -
• Some dangerous things must have been brought by a person on his
land.
• The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
• It must be non-natural use of land
 In this instant case the defendant has collected different species of snakes,
generally, if time permits the snake tendency is to escape from the barrier and after
escaped the snake into plaintiff’s property and bitten him. Hence defendant is liable
as per the terms of Rayland v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL.

48. The defendants were a firm of construction. The plaintiff entered into an agreement
with the defendant to purchase a flat constructed by the defendant. The plaintiff
took the possession of the flat and very soon he found that the ceiling of the flat is
falling down. Are the defendants liable?
Facts of the case
The defendants were a firm of construction. The plaintiff entered into an agreement
with the defendant to purchase a flat constructed by the defendant. The plaintiff
took the possession of the flat and very soon he found that the ceiling of the flat is
falling down.
Answer
Generally, after perusing the brochure containing specifications to be used for
construction, the parties will enter an agreement with construction firms, which may
also spell the same. In this instant case after took the possession of the flat and
very soon the plaintiff found that the ceiling of the flat is falling down. Hence the
defendant is liable.

Feb/March 2019
49. The defendant workers gathered around the plaintiff, rolling of their sleeves and
threatening to break his neck, if he did not immediately leave the place. Is defendant
liable for any Tort?
Facts of the case
The defendant workers gathered around the plaintiff, rolling of their sleeves and
threatening to break his neck, if he did not immediately leave the place.
Answer
Assault, which is "any act of such a nature as to excite an apprehension of battery.
Battery, " intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or
anything attached to it and practically identified with it.
In this instant case the defendant workers gathered around the plaintiff, rolling of
their sleeves and threatening to break his neck, if he did not immediately leave the
place, and hence committed Assault. Hence defendant workers liable for Assault.

50. X purchased a computer to run a DTP work business. Subsequently, he found the
computer with some defects. He wants to file a complaint before the district forum.
Advice.
Facts of the case
X purchased a computer to run a DTP work business. Subsequently, he found the
computer with some defects. He wants to file a complaint before the district forum.
 Answer
As per provisions of Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 “Product liability"
means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, of any product
or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective
product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services relating thereto;
A complainant can bring a product liability action against any product manufacturer
or service provider or a seller in case any harm is suffered by him due to a defective
product or service. A product manufacturer will be held liable under the Act in case
the product has a manufacturing defect, defective in design, does not follow the
manufacturing specifications, does not conform to implied warranty and does not
contain adequate instructions for proper usage of the product.
In this instant case X purchased a computer to run a DTP work business.
Subsequently, he found the computer with some defects. Hence X has rightly filed
a case against manufacturer and seller for damages on product liability under the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

51. X was called to his office on the pretext for some enquiry and was made to sit there
in the waiting rooms till the police arrived to arrest him. He wants to file a case
against his employer. Discuss.
Facts of the case
X was called to his office on the pretext for some enquiry and was made to sit there
in the waiting rooms till the police arrived to arrest him.
Answer
In the case of Meering v. Graham – White Aviation Co. [(1920) 121 L.T. 44]
[Atkin J.] – It was held by Atkin J. that knowledge of the imprisonment is not
necessary/essential element to bring an action for false imprisonment because the
wrong could be constituted even without a person having the knowledge of the same.
Thus, a person might be wrongfully restrained, while he is asleep, drunk, insane, etc.
i.e., to say that his freedom to move might be restrained even without his being
aware of the situation.
Facts: The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company. He was suspected
of having stolen the company’s property. He was called to the company’s office under
the pretext of investigations regarding the stolen property. One or two employees
remained outside the room where the plaintiff was made to sit. In the meantime, the
police was called and the plaintiff was arrested on the charge of theft. He was
acquitted and then he sued the company for false imprisonment
In terms of Meering v. Graham – White Aviation Co. [(1920) 121 L.T. 44] [Atkin
J.] X might have falsely imprisoned, hence X can file a case for false imprisonment
made his office authorities.

52. A doctor left a mop inside the abdomen of Y during an operation. Y died due to
infection. Discuss the liability of A.
 Facts of the case
A Doctor left a mop inside the abdomen of Y during an operation. Y died due to
infection.
Answer
In Collins v. Hertfordshire C.C., 1947 KB 598, the hospital authority was held liable
for the negligence of a junior house surgeon, a student, for injecting a patient with
cocaine, a dangerous drug, instead of procaine, a harmless local anaesthetic as the
result of which the patient died.
The Doctor negligently left a mop inside the abdomen of Y during an operation and
due to infection Y died. Hence in terms of Collins v. Hertfordshire C.C., 1947 KB 598
Doctor is liable for his negligence.

August/September 2019
53. A prisoner was on hunger strike. He was forcibly fed by the prison authorities. Can
A bring an action of Tort against the prison authorities?
Facts of the case
A prisoner was on hunger strike. He was forcibly fed by the prison authorities.
Answer
In the case of Lakshmi Narain vs The State on 28 August, 1958 it was held that
it is only when a prisoner goes on hunger-strike that he can be prosecuted under
Section 52 of the Prisons Act, and mere refusal to take food even on repeated
occasions will not by itself turn this refusal into a hunger-strike. Hence jail
authorities have not committed any tort by forcible fed.

54. The plaintiff’s bus, which was not in a working condition, was parked on the road and
caused obstruction to the traffic. The traffic Police removed the bus with the
assistance of the municipal employees. The plaintiff’s filed a case against the state
for moving the bus without their permission. Discuss.
Facts of the case
The plaintiff’s bus, which was not in a working condition, was parked on the road and
caused obstruction to the traffic. The traffic Police removed the bus with the
assistance of the municipal employees
Answer
Plaintiff has parked his bus on Road, which caused obstruction to the traffic, hence
on public interest for smooth flow of traffic with the help of municipal employees
the said Bus was removed from the Road by the traffic police by discharging their
legitimate duties. Hence the case filed by the plaintiff does not stand and liable for
dismissal.

55. The defendants used old and worn-out tyres in a vehicle and the same burst when
the vehicle is going at an excessive speed and caused accident to the plaintiff due
 to the sudden burst of the tyres. The defendants took the defence of inevitable
accident. Discuss.
Facts of the case
The defendants used old and worn-out tyres in a vehicle and the same burst when
the vehicle is going at an excessive speed and caused accident to the plaintiff due
to the sudden burst of the tyres. The defendants took the defence of inevitable
accident
Answer
inevitable accident in tort is a general defence which guards the defendant from
liability for an unforeseeable incident, where there is no intention or negligence on
his or her part, and where there was exercise of prudence, skill and proper care.
In this case due to usage of old and worn-out tyres, when vehicle is going at an
excessive speed the tyres were burst and accident to the plaintiff. Hence the
defendant plea of inevitable accident is not justifiable and defendant is liable for
the accident.

56. A housing society offered services to its members on no profit no loss basis. The
complainant filed a complaint contending deficiency in the apartment allotted to him.
Is housing society liable under consumer law?
Facts of the case
A housing society offered services to its members on no profit no loss basis. The
complainant filed a complaint contending deficiency in the apartment allotted to him
Answer
Generally, after perusing the brochure containing specifications to be used for
construction, the parties will enter an agreement with construction firms, which may
also spell the same. In this instant case after the housing society is not exaptational,
the society might have discussed and entered an agreement with its members for
payment of its consideration. After taking possession of the flat, if any member
found/noticed deficiency in services as contended in the broacher the plaintiff can
file suit before consumer forum making housing society liable for such deficiency.

September 2021
57. X a banker refuses to honour customers cheque having sufficient funds in his hands
belonging to the customer. Customer intended to file a suit against the bank. Will he
succeed?
Facts of the case
X a banker refuses to honour customers cheque having sufficient funds in his hands
belonging to the customer
Answer
According to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Act, the dishonour
of cheque is a criminal offence and is punishable by imprisonment up to two years or
with monetary penalty or with both. In this instant Bank manager refused to honour
 cheque presented by X, if the cheque would have given on third party name the X
would have faced action under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Act.
Hence Bank Manger liable for dishonouring self-drawl cheque of X, when sufficient
funds are available in his account.

58. The plaintiff and the defendants’ dogs were fighting. The defendant was beating
them in order to separate them. The defendant accidently hit the plaintiffs dog
causing the death of the dog. The plaintiff brings an action against the defendant,
can be succeed?
Facts of the case
The plaintiff and the defendants’ dogs were fighting. The defendant was beating
them in order to separate them. The defendant accidently hit the plaintiffs dog
causing the death of the dog.
Answer
In the case of Brown v. Kendall (1850) the Court held that the act of the defendant
of parting the dogs was lawful and proper and which the defendant might do by
using proper and safe means. And if while doing so, the defendant had exercised
all due care and taken all proper precautions keeping in mind the urgency of the
situation to avoid others from being hurt, and injury is caused to the plaintiff,
then the defendant was not liable for such injury. Which established the necessity
of proving negligence for imposing liability for accidental injury. The case shifted
the burden of proving negligence on the plaintiff rather than leaving it on the
defendant to prove the absence of negligence
In terms of Brown v. Kendall (1850) defendant is not liable.

59. The plaintiff, who was in advanced state of pregnancy was standing behind her
husband’s public bar. The defendant’s servant negligently drove a horse ran into bar
with the result that she got a severe shock and delivered child, which become dull
headed. Advise her.
Facts of the case
The plaintiff, who was in advanced state of pregnancy was standing behind her
husband’s public bar. The defendant’s servant negligently drove a horse ran into bar
with the result that she got a severe shock and delivered child, which become dull
headed.
Answer
Nervous shock of recent origin. It provides relief when a person may get physical
injury not by an impact, e.g., by stick, bullet or sword but merely by a nervous shock
through what he has seen or heard
In this case defendant’s servant negligently drove a horse ran into bar, when
plaintiff, who was in advanced state of pregnancy was standing behind her husband’s
 public bar and with result that she got a severe shock and delivered child, which
become dull headed.
In a similar case of Dulieu v. White, Atkin L.J. it was held that an action could lie
in negligence for nervous shock which had arisen from a reasonable fear for one’s
own (in the present case, plaintiff’s) immediate safety. Such an injury could be
compensated. Hence on similar terms plaintiff can claim compensation.

60. X a driver of the police patrol jeep. While reporting for duty in the morning and while
driving to the police station he negligently crushed a school going boy under his jeep.
The father of the boy brought at an action for damages against the State. Discuss.
Facts of the case
X a driver of the police patrol jeep. While reporting for duty in the morning and while
driving to the police station he negligently crushed a school going boy under his jeep.
Answer

Vicarious Liability of state is also known as the tortious liability of the Government.
State’s liability for the tortious actions of its employees is called as tortious liability
of the State. State is liable for the acts of negligence, wrongful execution and
omission or commission either voluntarily or involuntarily.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another 1962 AIR 933,
1962 SCR Supl. (2) 989, the supreme Court held that “the act of the driver was not
an act in the exercise of a sovereign function. The Court said that the employment
of driver of a jeep car for the use of a civil servant was an activity which was not
connected in any manner with the sovereign power of the State at all”

Hence in terms State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati the father of boy has rightly
brought at an action for damages against the State wile filing a case against State.

December 2021
61. X played a practical joke on Y, telling her that her husband has lost both his legs in
an accident. Hearing this Y suffered nervous sock and got seriously ill. She had to
incur huge expenses for treatment, can she sue X for damages? Decide.
Facts of the case
X played a practical joke on Y, telling her that her husband has lost both his legs in
an accident. Hearing this Y suffered nervous sock and got seriously ill. She had to
incur huge expenses for treatment.
Answer
Nervous shock of recent origin. It provides relief when a person may get physical
injury not by an impact, e.g., by stick, bullet or sword but merely by a nervous shock
through what he has seen or heard
 In this case Y played a a practical joke on Y, telling her that her husband has lost
both his legs in an accident. Hearing this Y suffered nervous sock and got seriously
ill. She had to incur huge expenses for treatment.
In a similar case of Dulieu v. White, Atkin L.J. it was held that an action could lie
in negligence for nervous shock which had arisen from a reasonable fear for one’s
own (in the present case, plaintiff’s) immediate safety. Such an injury could be
compensated. Hence on similar terms X can claim damages.

62. X dug a well in his land for use of his farm, as a result of which water from the well
of Y, his neighbour dried away. Can Y sue X? decide.
Facts of the case
X dug a well in his land for use of his farm, as a result of which water from the well
of Y, his neighbour dried away.
Answer
Mr. X has dug a well in his land for use of his farm, as a result of which water from
the well of Y, his neighbour dried away. X never trespassed into neighbour’s land and
hence not actionable. But as per Telangana Water, Tree and Land act (TS WALTA
for Telangana State similarly AP WALTA for the State of AP) it is prerequisite to
obtain permission from Revenue Authorities for digging wells, if such prerequisite
permissions are essential, then definitely its tort for not obtaining such permission.

63. Due to heavy rainfall the will of defendant’s house collapsed resulting in death of
plaintiff’s child. In an action for damages, the defendant pleaded the defence of Act
of God. Discuss?
Facts of the case
Due to heavy rainfall the will of defendant’s house collapsed resulting in death of
plaintiff’s child. In an action for damages, the defendant pleaded the defence of Act
of God.
Answer

In Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL it was held that wherein the House of

Lords laid “the Rule of Strict Liability. The Rule of Strict Liability says that even if
the defendant was not negligent, or rather, even if the defendant did not
intentionally cause the harm, or he was careful, he could still be made liable for the
harm caused. There are certain exceptions laid down to this rule. They are: (i)
Plaintiff’s own default; (ii) Consent of the plaintiff; (iii) Act of God; (iv) Act of
stranger; (v) Common benefit; and (vi) Statutory authority.

In this instant case the defendant has pleaded the defence of Act of God. Act of
God may be defined as an operation of natural forces, so unexpected that no human
foresight or skill could reasonably be expected to anticipate it. Hence, the defendant
pleaded the escape has been unforeseen and because of supernatural forces, without
any human intervention
64. A makes a derogatory remark against B during Parliament proceedings. What are the
legal remedies available to B?
Facts of the case
A makes a derogatory remark against B during Parliament proceedings.
Answer
Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation
of another, he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference with the
property.
The defences to an action for defamation are: (i) Justification or Truth; (ii) Fair
comment; (iii) Privilege, which may be either absolute or qualified.
In this instant case the derogatory remarks made against B during Parliament
proceedings. There are certain occasions when the law recognizes that the right of
free speech outweighs the plaintiff's right to reputation: the law treats such
occasions to be "privileged" and a defamatory statement made on such occasions is
not actionable. Hence no legal remedy is available.