Cases in Tort.

(Midsems)

1) Jay Laxmi Salt Case 3

2) MCD vs. Subhagwanti 3
3) Town Area Committee vs Prabhu Dayal 3
4) Ashby vs. White and Other 4
5) White vs John Warrick and Co. ltd 4
6) Burnard vs Haggis 4
7) Jenning vs Rundall 4
8) Varghese vs Varghese 5
9) Merryweather vs Nixon 5
10)Moon vs Towers 5
11)Bebee vs Sales 5
12)Donaldson vs MC Niven 5
13)Rohtas Industries case 5
14)Tiru Veriamuthu Pillai vs Municipal Council 5
15)Lucknow Development Authority vs MK Gupta 6
16)Abrath vs Eastern Railway Co 6
17)Citizens life Assurance Company vs Brown 6
18)Borton vs London & South West Railway co. 6
19)El Joue vs Dollar land holdings 6
20)Campbell vs Padington Corp 6
21)Lala Vishambharnath vs Agra Municipal Corp 7
22)Donoghue vs Stevenson 7
23)Hedley Byrne & Co ltd vs Heller & Partners limited 7
24)Home Office vs Dorset Yacht Co ltd 7
25)Anns vs London Borough of Merton 8
26)Governors of Peabody Donation Fund vs Sir Lindsay 8
27)Curran vs Northern Island Co-ownership Housing Association 8
28)Yuen Kum Yen vs Attorney General of Hong Kong 9
29)Davis vs Radcliffe 9
30)Pramod Malhotra vs UOI 9
31)Hill vs Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 10
32)Caparo Industries vs Dickman 10
33)Junior Books vs Veitchi Co ltd 10
34)Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Co vs Basanti Bai 11
35)Bourhill vs Young 11
36)Murphy vs Brentwood District Council 11
37)Stovin vs Wise 12
38)Union of India vs United India Insurance 12
39)Rajkot Municipal Corp vs Manjulaben 12
40)Kent vs Griffith 12
41)P Perl Exporters Limited vs Corden London Borough 13
42)King vs Liverpool city council 13
43)Smith vs Littlewoods 13
44)Sutradhar vs UK HL case 13
45)Uphaar Association case 13
 46)Roops vs Barnard 13
47)Goodwill vs British Pregnancy Advisory Company 14
48)Santara case 14
49)Latimer vs AEC 14
50)Klaus vs East India Hotel 14
51)Hall vs Brooklands 14
52)Achut Rao Khodwa vs State of Maharashtra 14
53)Smith vs Baker 15
54)Thomas vs Quartermaine 15
55)Dann vs Hamilton 15
56)Alka vs UOI 15
57)Haynes vs Harwood 16
58)Cutler vs United Dairies London limited 16
59)Reeves vs Commissioner of Police of Metropolis 16
60)South Indian Industries case 16
61)Sidaway vs Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and 16
62)Janaki S Kumar vs Mrs Sarfumia 17
63)Samira Kohli vs Prabha Manchanda 17
64)Jacob Mathew 17
65)State of Bihar v SK Mukherjee 17
66)Roshwell vs chemical and insulating company 17
67)Glasgow Corp v Taylor 18
68)White vs Jones 18

1) Jay Laxmi Salt Case

● Relates to widening the scope of tort law. Tort need not just be limited to
misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance.
● If there a series of steps causing damage, then damage is presumed to have
taken place when plaintiff obtains knowledge about the same

2) MCD vs. Subhagwanti

A clock tower collapsed killing many people. Structure was 80 years old, although
normal life is 40 years. It was under the maintenance of MCD
● .MCD was held liable
● It owed a duty of care to the general public and was negligent in maintaining
the tower, by not getting periodic checks done on the tower and repairing it.

3) Town Area Committee vs Prabhu Dayal

Plaintiff constructed shops on old foundations of a building without complying with
the rules of the UP Municipalities Act, so the Town Area Committee demolished it.
Plaintiff alleged that the demolition was illegal as the committee officers were acting
out of malicious intention.
● Demolition was held lawful.
● Damnum Sine Injuria - Although there was damage, legal right of plaintiff was
not violated as construction was illegal
● Since the demolition is legal, it does not matter whether or not it was driven by
mala fide intention

4) Ashby vs. White and Other

Plaintiff was a qualified voter at the election, but the returning officer refused to take
his vot. Eventually No loss was suffered as the plaintiff’s preferred candidate won.
● Defendant was held liable
● Injuria sine Damnum - Although there was no damage, there was a violation
of the plaintiff’s legal right

5) White vs John Warrick and Co. ltd

Plaintiff hired a cycle from the defendants. The written agreement stated that
"Nothing in this agreement shall render the owners liable for any personal injury".
While the plaintiff was riding the cycle, the defective saddle tilted forward and he was
injured.
● Defendant not liable for contractual liability due to clause
● Held liable for tort of supplying defective machine
● Plaintiff (White), a newspaper and tobacco vendor at Canonbury,
entered a written contract with Defendant (John Warwick & Co Ltd)
wherein Defendant had to supply newspaper delivery tricycle to the
Plaintiff in working condition and also to repair the damages with no
other charges except punctures.
● 2. At the end of May 1950, the plaintiff informed the defendant to repair
the tricycle, as it was in need to be repaired.
● 3. Defendant’s representative left a spare tricycle in exchange for the
one which was to be repaired. The plaintiff, without examining, used it
and was injured because of the faulty and loose saddle.
● 4. Anthony (plaintiff’s employee) deposed that the saddle slips back,
which causes him to lose control. He tried to tighten it but the nuts were
too rusty.

● Contention:
● 1. The defendant breached the warranty as he failed to provide a
reasonably fit tricycle. Therefore, he is liable to pay for the damages.
 ● 2. The defendant was negligent, i.e. had not taken reasonable care
as he provided an unfit cycle with no examination which resulted in the
injury to the plaintiff.
● 3. Defendant contended he is not liable for any personal injuries to any
rider of the cycle as per clause 11 of the agreement.

● Ratio of White v John Warwick case:

● LORD SINGELTON
● 1. Court held the defendant liable. When there is negligence, a clause
can’t be a bar for the action of the damages.
● 2. If the exemption from negligence would have already been
mentioned, then the defendant would not have been liable. Here, the
clause only exempts the defendant from the strict liability but not
from negligence. The facts giving rise to tort and breach of contract
can be the same.
● 3. In the White vs John Warwick case, negligence is founded on the
tort, as if the plaintiff’s servant had been riding a tricycle, and if he could
show negligence by the defendant, then the defendant is held liable as
the exemption clause would not be a defence in this case.
● Tort Meaning – The word “tort” is derived from the Latin word tortum,
which means twisted or crooked or wrong or unlawful. The law imposes
a duty to respect the legal rights of others, and the person making a
breach of that duty is said to have done the wrongful act.
● Negligence Meaning – Negligence in tort simply means when you had
a duty towards someone, you breached that duty and in consequence
of that breach, there was some damage caused to the other party.
●

6) Burnard vs Haggis
Minor hired horse from Haggis on the “Express condition that it would be used only
for riding, not for jumping. Minor lent the mare to a friend, who made it jump over a
fence. The mare was impaled on it and killed.
● Minor not liable for breach of contract
● But liable for tort of trespass of property by lending to friend, as minor cant be
absolved for tortious liability
aise toh awkward ho jayega cuz I very well know it’s mine

7) Jenning vs Rundall
Minor hired a mare to ride and injured it by overriding
 ● Minor was not liable for breach of contract
● Contract with minor is void ab intio
● The BOC can’t be altered into tort of negligence
● Held,Mwas not liable in tort for negligence since all he did was an act contemplated
by the contract that is riding.
These two cases show that if expressly mentioned in contract, it won’t be tried as tort
but only contract

8) P Seetharamayya v. G Mahalaxmmamma (Damun sine injuria)

Provision:

Damnum sine injuria and one’s riparian rights to protect one’s land

Facts:

 Appellants and defendants are owners of nearby lands.

 In order to prevent water from entering her land through a hole in the vagu’s(water stream)
embankment and damaging a piece of it, the fifth defendant constructed a bund.
 To keep water out of their land, the first through fourth defendants constructed a ditch.
 Defendants 1-4 also constructed a second bund to the north of their land as an additional
defense.
 Because of all the above protective measures by the defendants, the rainwater from the first
four defendants’ plots drained into the appellants’ plot damaging the variga and groundnut
crops.
 On the defendants’ properties, the appellant asked for a required injunction to remove the
bunds and fill in the trench and a permanent order preventing these defendants from building
bunds or constructing trenches, as well as compensation for the harm caused by the water
flow.
Issues

 Can the defendants prevent flooding on their property?

 Does the plaintiff experience any legal injury?
Judgement

1. As per the Commissioner’s plan, the Vagu on the west is a regular stream.
2. The defendant has riparian rights to defend their property since floodwater caused damage.
3. Owners should have the freedom to choose a reasonable level of land protection.
4. The defendants did not cause any legal injury to the plaintiffs.
5. The plaintiff can also exercise their riparian rights and take precautions against flooding to
protect their lands just like the defendants did.
Effect of judgement

In P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma, it firmly set the legal maxim damnum sine

injuria. Damage without any legal injury can’t lead to compensation.
Conclusion

In P. Seetharamayya v. G. Mahalakshmamma, it was decided that it was a case of damnum

sine injuria and that each person has riparian rights to protect his property.

9) Merryweather vs Nixon
When wrongdoers jointly commit wrongful act, one wrongdoer can’t take action
against the other for his contribution
- Personal capacity husband and wife

10)Moon vs Tower

11)Bebee vs Sales
Father supplied his 15 year old son with an airgun, and allowed it to remain with him
despite complaints of the son’s mischievous use of the airgun. The boy accidentally
wounded the plaintiff.
● Father was held liable
● He negligently afforded his child an opportunity to commit a tort.

12)Donaldson vs MC Niven
Child promised father not to use the gun provided to him, and father relied on the
statement. However, child later broke the promise, killing a kid.
● Father not liable

13)Rohtas Industries case

Workers went on strike, which resulted in loss for the company, who then sued their
employees for the same
● Workers not liable
● No action in torts for strikes

14)Tiru Veriamuthu Pillai vs Municipal Council

Plaintiff’s dog was killed by employee of municipal council while discharging function
of killing stray dogs
● Council is liable
 ● Can’t be argued that the council didn’t authorize workers to kill pet dogs.
● Immunity can’t be claimed by corporation just because act is ultra vires

15)Lucknow Development Authority vs MK Gupta

- Consumer should be protected against services from statutory bodies

16)Abrath vs Eastern Railway Co

Dr Abrath was prosecuted for issue of fake certificate to passenger, but he was later
acquitted. He sued railways for malicious prosecution.
● Railways not liable.
● In malicious prosecution, motive is an essential ingredient. However, a
corporation cannot be attributed a motive as it has no mind of its own.
(Overruled by Citizens)

17)Citizens life Assurance Company vs Brown

Superior employee of a company issued a circular with malicious libel.
● Company was held vicariously liable.
● Company liable for acts of servant
● Since companies are recognised as legal persons, they are liable to have the
mental states of agents and employees such as dishonesty or malice
attributed to them for the purpose of establishing civil liability.

18) M.C.D v. Assn, victims of uphaar tragedy

19)El Joue vs Dollar land holdings

Corp has a mind and will like a natural person as its made of a grp of officers etc
who have the mind to direct the management. So company is liable for the wrongs of
malice and fraud. So company can be sued for any malicious or fraudulent activities.

20)Campbell vs Padington Corp

During funeral procession of Edward 7, plaintiff wanted to make profit by charging
people for using seats in her house to view the procession. However, a metropolitan
borough, after a formal resoltion within its council, erected a stand in the highway for
council members to view the procession, which was a public nuisance. It also
obstructed the view from the plaintiff’s house, so she could not make the profits. She
sued for tort of private nuisance, as the corporation had interfered with her use and
enjoyment of her land.
● Corporation was held liable.
● It was argued that the corporation had no authority to construct the stand, and
that the same had been ultra vires done by the council
● However, the only way a corporation acts is via its council. Since the stand
was erected after formal resolution of the borough council, it is considered as
being done by the corporation.
● Corporation can be made liable for both intra vires and ultra vires acts.

21)Lala Vishambharnath vs Agra Municipal Corp

Inferior quality of wheat was given for animal consumption. This was prohibited by
the Magistrate as it was unfit for consumption and a threat to public health. Filed
case against MC.

22) Donoghue vs Stevenson

Plaintiff consumed ginger beer purchased by her friend. She suffered stomach ache
on consuming part of it. Bottle contained decomposed remains of snail which could
not be seen through the opaque container.
● Manufacturer was held liable.
● Since he intended for the consumer to consume it as it is, he owed a duty of
care to the consumer.

23)Hedley Byrne & Co ltd vs Heller & Partners limited

Before engaging in a contract with a client, an advertising agency asked their
bankers, to ascertain the client’s financial position from client’s bankers - Heller and
Partners. H and P stated that they were in a good position, but also absolved
themselves of any responsibility for the statement. Relying on the statement, the
agency contracted with client, but subsequently suffered huge damages as client
went into liquidation. Agency sued H and P.
● The bankers were giving specialised advice to the agency. Hence they owed
a duty of care to apply ordinary skill while providing the service, even if there
was no contract between the bankers and the agency. Hence the bankers had
been negligent in issuing the statement, and there was a breach of duty.
● However,in this case, the don’t have to pay compensation as they had
protected themselves by issuing a disclaimer in the beginning.
 24)Home Office vs Dorset Yacht Co ltd
Borstal (detention centre) officers were negligent in supervising their trainees, who
then escaped and caused damage to a yacht.
● The officers were held liable
● They ought to have foreseen that this would happen if they failed to excercise
proper control and supervision over the trainees, so they owed prima facie
duty of care to the owner of the yacht.

25)Anns vs London Borough of Merton

Contact us

Two-stage test for duty of care was established:

1. Is there sufficient ‘proximity or neighbourhood’ between C and D

such that in D’s reasonable contemplation, carelessness on his
part might cause damage to C?
2. Were there any considerations which ought to ‘negative, or to
reduce or limit’ that duty?

Policy and operations distinction

 Duty of care cannot be based on the neighbourhood principle

alone or control as this would neglect the fact that the powers
and duties are defined in public law

 Where a public authority is discharging functions under public

law, the imposition of a duty of care must have regard to the
distinction between policy and operations

 Statutory powers and duties contain policy areas, which the

courts refer to as discretion, as well as operational areas, which
involve practical execution

 The more ‘operational’ a power or duty may be, the easier it is to

superimpose upon it a common law duty of care
  In the current case, the power to inspect the foundation was
‘heavily operational’

Facts
A block of flats to which the claimants were tenants suffered from a
structural defect because of foundations which were too shallow. The council
was responsible for inspecting the flats during their construction.

Issue
Did the council owe a duty of care?

Is the test for duty of care sufficient?

Decision
House of Lords held that the council did owe a duty of care, and established a
two stage test for duty of care which was later overruled by Caparo.

Reasons
The council's failure to check the foundation of the flats during construction
foreseeably resulted in the structural defect.

There were no policy considerations to prevent the duty being owed.

Ratio
A duty of care is established using a two stage test.

1) There must be a relationship of proximity between the claimant and

defendant, such that the harm caused by the defendant's action was
reasonably foreseeable.

2) There must be no policy consideration which restrict or extinguish the

duty.

This test was later overruled by Caparo's three stage test.

Structural Movements caused cracking in the floors and sloping of the walls of a flat.
The lessees of the apartment sued the local authority ie the Borough Council for
failing to inspect the foundation before construction. As per bye-laws of the Public
Health Act, the Borough council is enabled to supervise construction and foundation
of buildings.
● Council was held liable as there was
● Council failed to excercise reasonable care in preventing harm
● Economic loss (At that time economic damage held the party liable for
compensation. This was later overruled in Murphy.)
● Established 2 stage test - foreseeability and proximity

26)Governors of Peabody Donation Fund vs Sir Lindsay

Approved plan for the drainage system of a building was not followed. Although the
local authorities came to know of this, they took no action. Later, the drainage
system failed and had to be reconstructed. Building owners sued the authorities
alleging that they had a duty to ensure that the drainage was built as per the
approved plan.
● Local authorities were not held liable
● Their duty is only to safeguard the building occupiers and general public
against any health risks that might arise from the faulty drainage installation
● No duty to safeguard building owners from any loss arising due to non-
compliance with approved plans.

27)Curran vs Northern Island Co-ownership Housing Association

Plaintiff's predecessor built an extension to a house using a grant given by the
Housing Executive. As per the Housing order, the work was supposed to meet the
Executive’s requirements. After purchase, the plaintiff realised that the construction
was defective and did not comply with Exec’s standards, and had to be rebuilt at
huge costs. Plaintiff alleged that Exec wa negligent in permitting the extension to be
built defectively.
● Exec was not liable ( Following Anns and Peabody Donation fund)
● Exec has no control over building operations once grant is approved
● So can’t impose duty of care on Exec

28)Yuen Kum Yen vs Attorney General of Hong Kong

Plaintiffs invested their money in a deposit taking company. The company was run
fraudulently, and it later collapsed and wound up. Plaintiffs alleged that the
Commissioner for Deposit-taking Companies, who had the power to revoke
registration of these companies,, was negligent.
● Commissioner was not liable
● Although it was reasonably foreseeable that allowing such a company to run
would result in losses for the depositors
● Duty of care can’t be imposed as no direct proximity b/w com and prospective
depositors

29)Davis vs Radcliffe
A bank failed, causing loss of deposits to the depositors. The Treasurer and
Finance Board were sued, as they had licensing and regulatory powers over the
bank under the Banking Act 1975.
● No liability
● Foreseeability of damage alone is not sufficient to establish liability, its
necessary to establish proximity. No proximity b/w depositors and treasurer
● (Similar to Yuen Kum Yen)

30)Pramod Malhotra vs UOI

RBI granted SBL license to open a branch in Delhi, despite inspection showing that it
had various shortcomings. Under the Amalgamation Scheme of SBL with UBI, the
depositors were only allowed 9.037% of deposits, due to the poor financial situation
of SBL. Depositors sued RBI.
● RBI not liable
● Although foreseeability is there, Since relationship between RBI and
depositors not sufficiently proximate to impose liability of negligence.

31)Hill vs Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

A man committed a number of murders. The mother of the last victim sued the Chief
Constable for negligence. The criminal was not caught earlier due to many mistakes
in the investigation of earlier offences.
● Police not liable
● No duty of care to general public to identify and apprehend an unknown
criminal, even if it can be reasonably foreseen that not doing so would cause
harm.
 ● Foreseeability is not sufficient test for liability, proximity needs to be
established. But no proximity to individual members of the public.
BOURNHILL V YOUNG
Facts
A block of flats to which the claimants were tenants suffered from a
structural defect because of foundations which were too shallow. The council
was responsible for inspecting the flats during their construction.

Issue
Did the council owe a duty of care?

Is the test for duty of care sufficient?

Decision
House of Lords held that theCAP council did owe a duty of care, and
established a two stage test for duty of care which was later overruled by
Caparo.

Reasons
The council's failure to check the foundation of the flats during construction
foreseeably resulted in the structural defect.

There were no policy considerations to prevent the duty being owed.

Ratio
A duty of care is established using a two stage test.

1) There must be a relationship of proximity between the claimant and

defendant, such that the harm caused by the defendant's action was
reasonably foreseeable.

2) There must be no policy consideration which restrict or extinguish the

duty.

This test was later overruled by Caparo's three stage test.

 32)Caparo Industries vs Dickman
Caparo bought shares in a company, relying on an auditor’s report that affirmed the
company’s profit.. In reality the company was undergoing losses. Caparo sued
auditors for misrepresentation.
● Auditors not liable
● Auditors don’t owe duty of care towards Caparo
● There was no proximity of relationship
● Establishes 3 stage test - foreseeability, proximity, just and reasonable

Facts

 Accountants prepared annual audit statements for a company (as required by

law), which stated the company had made a profit.
 These statements were – unbeknownst to the auditors – later relied upon by
Caparo, who purchased shares in the company. It turned out that the
statements were wrong, and the company had actually made a substantial loss.
 Caparo sued for negligent misstatement, alleging he had sustained loss because
of the negligence of the accountants.
 At first instance, Dickman succeeded. This decision was appealed.
Issue
 Did the auditors owe the shareholder a duty of care?
Held
 The House of Lords upheld the appeal, holding that there was no duty of care
owed to the shareholder.
 This was a significant departure (or refinement) of the principle in Donoghue v
Stephenson.
 Lord Bridge carefully considered the proximity between the auditors and
shareholder. He noted that the accounts had been prepared for the corporation
as required by statute, not for the benefit of would-be shareholders. In fact, the
auditors did not know of the existence of Caparo.
 He referred approvingly to earlier comments of Lord Denning (in dissent)
stating that negligence should not apply to an “indeterminate time to an
indeterminate class”. It was very relevant that the accounts had not been
prepared for the purposes that Caparo used them for.
 Lord Bridge stated that you must look beyond just who it is reasonably
foreseeable could be affected by an act, but also what kind of damage they may
sustain.
 Therefore the test for negligence was amended to a three part test, known as
the Caparo test:
 Harm to the Plaintiff, by the Defendants’ actions, must be reasonably
foreseeable
  There must be sufficient proximity between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant
 It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the
Defendant.
●

Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha

These appeals, special leave petitions and the Writ Petition raise a common question
i.e., whether and, if so, in what circumstances a medical practitioner can be regarded
as rendering ‘service’ under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Connected with this question is the question whether the service rendered at a
hospital/nursing home can be regarded as ‘service’ under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.
These questions have been considered by various High Courts as well as by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Issues before the Court

Whether the services of a medical practitioner can be considered as ‘services’ under
Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

Whether hospitals and doctors come in the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986?

Ratio of the Case

NCDRC’s order decreed that the doctor – patient relationship is a contract for
personal service and it is not master – servant relationship. A doctor is an independent
contractor and the doctor, like the servant, is hired to perform a specific task.
However, the master or principal (the hirer) is allowed to direct only what is to be
done, and done, and when. The ‘how’ is left up to the specific discretion of the
independent contractor (doctor). So, the doctor-patient relationship is a contract for
personal service and as such, cannot be excluded from Consumer Protection Act.

The deficiency in service means only negligence in a medical negligence case and it
would be determined under Consumer Protection Act, by applying the same test as is
applied in an action for damages for negligence in a civil court.

Decision of the Court

The medical profession has been brought under the Section 2(1) (o) of CPA, 1986 and
also, it has included the following categories of doctors/hospitals under this Section:
 1. All medical / dental practitioners doing independent medical / dental practice
unless rendering only free service.

2. Private hospitals charging all patients.

3. All hospitals having free as well as paying patients and all the paying and free
category patients receiving treatment in such hospitals.

4. Medical / dental practitioners and hospitals paid by an insurance firm for the
treatment of a client or an employment for that of an employee.

It excuses only those hospitals and the medical / dental practitioners of such hospitals
which offer free service to all patients.

As a consequence of this judgment, effectively all private and government hospitals

and the doctors employed by them and the independent medical/dental practitioners
except primary health centers, birth control measures, anti-malaria drive and other
such welfare activities can be charged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

33)Junior Books vs Veitchi Co ltd

Defendants were subcontractors. They were contracted to do the flooring of a
factory. But the floor developed cracks in a few years
● Defendants are liable
● Contractors owed a duty of care as owners relied on their specialised skill.
Parties fell only just short of contractual relationship.
● Hence,there is sufficient proximity b/w the parties
● There was economic damage (Economic loss covered by tort law when
there’s reliance on special skill of defendant)
● Damage caused was direct and foreseeable

34)Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Co vs Basanti Bai

There was a communal riot in the city and the local authorities had promulgated
curfew order to ensure safety of the citizens. During this period, a driver was going
to his place of employment early morning, and was stabbed on his way. It was
alleged that the employer had a duty to take care of drivers safety and had failed to
excercise it.
● Employer was held liable
 ● Normally, employer owes no duty of care to for safety of employee while
employee is proceeding to his place of employment.
● However circumstances were unusual. The state of violence in the city and
the consequent curfew order shows that being outside was perilous.
● In such a situation, it is foreseeable that the employee is likely to get injured if
adequate measures were not taken for his safety. Hence the employer had a
duty to arrange for the same

35)Bourhill vs Young
. A negligent motor cyclist had been killed, and there was a pool of blood on the
road. A pregnant lady suffered nervous shock on seeing the blood and gave birth to
a stillborn child. She sued the personal representatives of the deceased motorcyclist.
● Deceased motorcyclist or representatives not liable
● Injury could not have been foreseen
● No duty of of care is owed to the lady

36)Murphy vs Brentwood District Council

Council approved the plan of a building with defective foundation, resulting in
damaged piping, which diminished the resale value for the house. The first buyer of
the building sued Council for negligence.
● Council not liable
● No compensation for pure economic loss (Overruled Anns which said that
economic loss was sufficient for suit)

37)Stovin vs Wise
Motor Accident happened because view was obstructed by earthbank on the side of
the road. Local highway authority had discretion to remove the bank and was sued
for not doing so.
● Authority not liable
● Although it had discretionary power no common law duty to remove it
● … The conditions that make one liable for not exercising statutory power are
○ It was irrational to not have exercised power
○ Persons who suffer lossed loss due to power not being exercised are
entitled to compensation under the policy of the statute
 38)Union of India vs United India Insurance
Train had collided with a bus at unmanned level crossing
● UII owning railway was liable
● It had duty to man the level crossing, given the traffic, and also to provide
proper signboard, which it did not
● In this case, unlike Stovin, both conditions that make one liable for not
exercising statutory power are met
○ It was irrational to not have exercised power
○ Persons who suffered loss in this case were entitled to compensation

39)Rajkot Municipal Corp vs Manjulaben

Roadside tree fell and injured plaintiff’s husband.
● RMC not liable
● Not reasonable to expect RMC to constantly test health conditions of trees in
public place
● Hence no duty to maintain roadside trees to prevent them from falling

40)Kent vs Griffith
Plaintiff was pregnant and had asthma. Ambulance was dialled on emergency, call
was accepted and told that it will arrive soon. But it took 40 mins to arrive, and
because of delay, she suffered respiratory arrest and miscarriage.
● Ambulance service is liable
● Injuries were caused due to delay.
● If wrong info regarding arrival wasn’t given alternate transportation could have
been arranged
● Since it accepted the call, Ambulance had duty of care to immediately send
ambulance

41)P Perl Exporters Limited vs Corden London Borough

Plaintiff and defendant shared adjoining flats. Thieves entered defendant’s
unoccupied flat, bored a hole through common wall and robbed plaintiff’s flat.
Defendant had taken no security measures despite other flats having been robbed
previously.
● Defendant not liable
● Does not owe duty of care to plaintiff to prevent entry of thieves from their flat.
 42)King vs Liverpool city council
Flat above the plaintiff was unoccupied, and vandals disrupted water system,
causing plaintiff’s flat to be flooded. This continued even after measures taken by
council.
● Council not held liable
● Didn’t owe duty of care to plaintiff
● Council had already taken reasonable steps from keeping away vandals
● Not possible for them to practically keep them away

43)Smith vs Littlewoods
Purchasers of a cinema closed it down and left it unattended, and trespassing
children started a fire in it which spread to other properties.
● Purchasers not liable
● Owed a duty to not endanger adjoining properties
● Conditions of third party negligence were met
1. Special r/s existed
2. Source of danger afforded by defendant
3. Defendant had knowledge about third party
● But act of children was not foreseeable

44)Sutradhar vs UK HL case

45)Uphaar Association case

46)Roops vs Barnard

47)Goodwill vs British Pregnancy Advisory Company

48)Santara case
 49)Latimer vs AEC
Heavy rainstorm flooded the respondent’s factory with water. Some oily substance
got mixed up with the water. The oil remained on the floor even after the water
drained away making the floor slippery. Respondent spread all available sawdust on
the floor to get rid of the oil, although some areas remained uncovered. An employee
slipped on one such oily patch and was injured. He sued respondent for negligence,
and contended that factory should be closed as precaution until all danger had
ceased.
● Respondent was not liable
● He had exercised reasonable care in trying to remove oil.
● Moreover, risk still remaining was not great enough so as to justify the closing
of factory with thousands of workers.

50)Klaus vs East India Hotel

Plaintiff dived into the swimming pool of a 5 star hotel, but hit the bottom as depth
was not sufficient. He suffered injuries and got paralysed.
● Hotel was liable
● There is duty of ensuring that services provided are safe. Any latent defect in
structure or service hazardous to guests would attract strict liability.
● Degree of care is especially higher because the consideration for service is v
high.

51)Hall vs Brooklands
In a motor car race, 2 cars collided, and 1 car was thrown among the spectators,
injuring the plaintiff who was a spectator
● Defendant was not liable as volenti applies
● Plaintiff knowingly undertook risk. It is implied that such sporting events can
have such consequences, so injury could be foreseen.

52)Achut Rao Khodwa vs State of Maharashtra

During an operation, a mop was left inside a lady patient’s abdomen. Thus she
developed peritonitis, had to undergo another surgery , which she didn’t survive.
● Surgeon was liable for medical negligence
● He did not apply reasonable care expected from an ordinary surgeon
● Res ipsa Loquitur
 53)Smith vs Baker
Workman was employed to work a drill for cutting a rock. Stones were being
conveyed from 1 side to the other using a crane, and each time the stones were
being conveyed, the crane would pass over the workman’s head. While he was
busy, a stone from the crane fell on the workman’s head
● Employers were held liable .
● Volenti does not apply
● Although there was knowledge of the general risk involved, there was no
voluntary consent to undergo injuries caused by employer’s negligence. The
workman himself was not negligent

54)Thomas vs Quartermaine
Employee of brewery was trying to remove lid off a boiling vat, but the lid was stuck.
He pulled forcefully, it suddenly came off and the man was thrown back into the
cooling vat which contained scalding liquid, severely injuring him.
● Owner of brewery not liable
● Volenti applies
● Danger was visible, and plaintiff still voluntarily encountered the same

55)Dann vs Hamilton
Lady chose to travel in a car despite knowing driver was drunk. There was an
accident due to the driver’s negligent driving,and she was injured.
● Lady was entitled to compensation
● Volenti does not apply
● Intoxication of the driver was not to such an extent that taking a lift could be
considered an obvious danger

56) Alka vs UOI

Defendants installed electronic pump in a room near a residential area with kids. A 6
year old came into the room, put her hand on the pump, and was injured.
● Defendant is liable for negligence
● Should have reasonably foreseen that this could happen
 ● Res Ipsa Loquitur applies

57)Haynes vs Harwood
Defendant’s servant left a 2 horse van unattended on the street. A boy threw stones
on the dog, endangering women and children on the road. Police Constable saved
them, but suffered injuries in the course of doing so
● Defendant is liable
● Volenti will not apply because it is a rescue case

58)Cutler vs United Dairies London limited

59)Reeves vs Commissioner of Police of Metropolis

A man in a jail cell was diagnosed as having suicidal tendencies. Yet they left the
hatch of the cell door open, and the prisoner tied his shirt to it and hung himself.
● Police is liable
● It can be argued that the police did not directly cause his death and and that
the suicide was novus actus intervenius
● However, police were aware of the risk and had a duty to try to prevent the
suicide.

60)South Indian Industries case

During work involving cast iron, molten material was shooting out and a 15 ft screen
was placed to shield the workers from the pieces of iron. Usually the pieces would
only fly at a height below 15 feet. Hence the company did not take much protection.
However, it once shot out higher than 15 feet, killing a worker.
● Company is liable
● The risk should have been foreseen, yet company did not take adequate
precautions
● Volenti does not apply
● Worker was not aware of risk and could not have consented to it

61)Sidaway vs Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and

Surgeon informed plaintiff of the possible consequences of surgery, but didn’t
mention spinal cord damage, as the possibility was v low. However, it did happen.
Plaintiff alleged that surgeon was negligent in not informing her about all the risks.
● Surgeon not liable
 ● His duty is to act in accordance with the practice followed by any reasonably
competent doctor
● The non disclosure in this case was deemed acceptable conduct by body of
medical professionals (Bolam Test)

62)Janaki S Kumar vs Mrs Sarfumia

During a surgery, sterilisation was performed on the patient. Consent was taken from
the patient while she was on anesthesia.
● Doctor is liable
● Consent sought while the patient is on anesthesia is not considered valid
consent

63)Samira Kohli vs Prabha Manchanda

An unmarried woman was asked to undergo surgery. She signed the consent form
for laparoscopy, and laparotomy for diagnostic purposes. While she was
unconscious, the surgeon also removed her uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes after
acquiring permission from her mother for the same.
● The doctor was liable for medical negligence.
● The doctor should have acquired consent from the plaintiff. Patient has right
to self determination.
● Consent given by the patient’s relative is not valid.
● There was no medical emergency and this was only a stage of diagnosis. So
no scope for unauthorized procedure.

64)Jacob Mathew
Ashok Sharma’s father, Jivan Lal, in terminal stage of Cancer and was not being
admitted
by any Hospital and required to be kept at home, was admitted to CMC hospital The
patient having breathing difficulty, Dr Jacob Mathew and Dr Allen Joseph attended
him
after 20-25 minutes. He connected an oxygen cylinder but it was empty and in
process
of making alternative arrangement, the patient died.

65)State of Bihar v SK Mukherjee

Engineer for Kosi Project was given a boat without life saving devices to cross the
river. Boat capsized, and the man died
 ● State was held liable
● Since Kosi was known for its turbulent waters, risk was foreseeable, and not
providing safety devices was negligence
● Since the magnitude of risk is quite high, standard of care to be given is
higher

66)Roshwell vs chemical and insulating company

Claimants negligently exposed to asbestos and developed pleural plaque which by
itself didn’t have any consequences, but could result in life threatening ailments in
the future
● Claim was rejected
● No cause for action since there’s no damage yet

67)Glasgow Corp v Taylor

Poisonous berries, which looked like cherries, were grown in public garden. There
was no warning sign board / fencing around the shrub. A 7 year old ate the berries
and died.
● Corporation is liable
● Had a duty to not attract children into danger
● Danger was reasonably foreseeable

68) White vs Jones