ASSIGNMENT OF LAW OF TORT

NAME:MUHAMMAD HUZAIFA
DATE: 5/7/2021

Damage by explosive substance

The respondents, a firm of carriers. And carriers inside nitro-ycerine chemical gas was
continuous leaking outside the carriers. The case was therefore taken to the defendants'
officers, which they had rented from the plaintiff. and a servant of the defendants proceeded
to open the case for examination. but nitro-ycerine which it contained exploded, all the
persons present were killed, and the building was damaged. In the absence of reasonable
ground Of suspicion the contents of packages offered them for carriage. and that. without such
knowledge h fact and without negligence, they were not liable for damage caused by the
accident.

Injury to eye
The plaintiff’s and defendant dog are fighting with one another and defendant want to save
both of dogs and for which he started beating them to separate them from one another so
defendant don’t know the plaintiff was so close and defendant accidentally hit the plaintiff eye
and his was totally mistake and accident and therefore no action would lie.

The defendant parked his car in street and his left dog inside. The dog had always been quiet
and polite. The Plaintiff was passing the car so dog was barking and Jumping about the car and
he crack glass panel, and a splinter and hit the plaintiff left eye, which had to be removed. In
action for damages and as the accident was so unlikely there was no negligence in not taking
precaution against.
Injury by runaway Horses
The defendant's horses whereas being driven by his hireling on a open thruway, ran absent by
the woofing of a dog and got to be so unmanageable that the hireling seem not halt them.
canister may. to a few extent. While unsuccessfully trying to turn a coroner safely. And horse
hit the plaintiff and they knocked down and injured.

Injury by pellet
The defendant who was fired on pheasant one of pellet from his gun glanced off the bough of a
tree and accidentally wounded the hit plaintiff who was enjoying the game and party. It was
held the defendant was not liable. This case been criticized as erroneous, Although the decision
can be supported on the basis of voluntary non-fit amoria.