CASE LAWS FOR TORTS

VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA:

1)Hall v Brooklands Auto racing club
On the day in question two competing cars in a long-distance race on this track were involved
in a collision on the finishing straight, with one of the cars being flung into the air and over
the kerb and railing, hitting a group of spectators and killing two of them. No such accident
had occurred previously in the history of the course, which had been running races for over
20 years. D was sued in negligence by an injured spectator, who alleged that the premises had
not been made adequately safe for spectators, nor had adequate warning of the dangers been
given.It was the duty of the defendants to see that the track was as free from danger as
reasonable care and skill could make it, but they were under no duty to guard against risks
that were not reasonably foreseeable, or which were innate to the activity of which C was a
spectator. As no accident of this nature had previously occurred it could not be said to be
reasonably foreseeable, and D was not required to militate the risk of an event that no amount
of due diligence would have revealed.
2)Wooldridge v Sumner
The plaintiff, Mr. Wooldridge, who was a photographer at a horse race, was injured by the
horse belonging to the defendant, Sumner, which was ridden in a competition by Ron
Holladay, who was a skilled and experienced horseman. The Court of Appeal held that
Sumner owed no duty of care to Wooldridge in this case. As a spectator, Wooldridge accepted
the risks involved in a horserace he came to watch. As a reasonable participant in the race,
which is a fast and competitive sport, the horseman was expected to concentrate on the race
and not on the spectator. In the course of a fast-moving competition such as this one, he could
be expected to make errors of judgment. As long as the damage was not caused recklessly or
deliberately, the participant in a race could not be held liable for the spectators injuries
because he was not negligent, i.e. not in breach of his duty.
3) Smith v. Baker case
Plaintiff was an employee at the stone drilling site where he got serious injuries from felling
of a stone on him by the crane which was used to lift and pass the stones. No prior warning
was given. One of the other employees previously complained about the issue to the manager.
decision- 1. The defendant is liable for the negligence as there were no due precautions taken
by the defendant to prevent the injury to the plaintiff. Volenti non fit injuria doesn’t apply
here as the plaintiff didn’t give consent as mere knowledge of the risk doesn’t mean consent
to the risk.
4) Padmavati v Dugganaika
In the case of Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the plaintiffs had asked for a lift in the jeep of the
defendants and while travelling in it one of the screws of the wheel of the jeep fell out, as a
result, the jeep crashed and it caused the death of one of the plaintiffs. In the case, the Court
held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria will apply and thus the defendants were not
liable because by sitting in the jeep the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of being injured in an
accident.
5) Dann v Hamilton
The claimant got into the back of a car driven by the defendant, who she knew to be drunk.
She was not under any compulsion, nor was there any necessity for her to get in. The
claimant had driven around with the defendant earlier in the evening, and was aware that he
had been driving negligently. The defendant got into an accident due to his drunken state. The
defendant was killed and the claimant was injured. The claimant sued the defendant’s estate
in negligence. The defendant’s estate admitted negligence, but raised the defence of volenti
non fit injuria. That the defence fails, and the claim succeeds.
6) Haynes v Harwood
In the case of Haynes v. Harwood (1935), 1 KB 146, the servant of the defendant brought two
horses in the town near a police station and left them to do some other work. The horses were
upset by the children and they broke free, seeing them in rage the plaintiff who was a police
officer went to stop the horses and in doing so he got injured and brought a case against the
owner for damages. The court held the defendant liable because the defence of volenti non-fit
injuria did not apply in a rescue case.

ACT OF GOD
1) Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Railway
The defendant had constructed a pond a diverting natural stream. heavy rain destroyed it and
escaped to the plaintiff's property damaging it. it was held that heavy rainfall is not
unpredictable and that the defendant should have taken adequate measures beforehand.
therefore, he was held liable.
2) Nichols v. Marsland
In this case, the defendant owned an artificial lake on his property. The lake was created by
diverting water from a stream. Due to heavy rainfall, the lake overflowed and caused flooding
downstream, damaging the plaintiff's property. The court held that the defendant was not
liable because the flooding was caused by an act of God (excessive rainfall), which was
unforeseeable and beyond the defendant's control.

INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
1) Fardon v Harcourt Rivington
The defendant and his wife went to a market. Leaving there dog inside their car. After
sometime the dog become excited broke the back glass. A broken glass went into the
plaintiff’s eye and then he lost his eye.
Issue: Inevitable accident or not? Judgment: The defendant was not liable on the ground of
negligence.
2) Nitro Glycerine case
a wooden case was to be transported to its destination was obtained by the defendants, a
company of carriers, and its substance was not conveyed. It was discovered at an interim
station that the contents had been leaking. Consequently, the case was brought to the premises
of the defendants, which they had leased from the complainant, and the defendant’s servant
proceeded to open the case for review, but the nitro-glycerine it housed detonated. They
killed all the people present, and the building was destroyed. For damages sustained by parts
of the building let to other tenants as well as to the defendants, the landlord filed an action. As
for the place occupied by them, the defendants accepted their responsibility for waste but
denied it as for the rest of the house. In the first place, it was held that, in the lack of a fair
basis of doubt, the defendants were not obliged to recognise that the contents of the packages
were sold to them for carriage and that, without such knowledge in fact and without
negligence, they were not responsible for harm incurred by the accident.
3) Stanley v. Powell
The defendant and the plaintiff went for pheasant shooting. The defendant fired at a pheasant
but the shot dodged from an oak tree and injured the plaintiff. The defendant was not held
liable.
4) Padmavati v Dugganaika
In the case of Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the plaintiffs had asked for a lift in the jeep of the
defendants and while travelling in it one of the screws of the wheel of the jeep fell out, as a
result, the jeep crashed and it caused the death of one of the plaintiffs. In the case, the Court
held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria will apply and thus the defendants were not
liable because by sitting in the jeep the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of being injured in an
accident.
Rylands v. Fletchers- Rylands V/S Fletcher
Facts: The plaintiff and defendant were neighbouring property owners. The defendant, a
mill owner hired independent contractors for the construction of a water reservoir on his
land. While working, the contractors came across passages under the reservoir which was
filled loosely only with Earth and Marl, but they chose to ignore the problem. Once the
reservoir was full, water broke through these shafts, flooding the mine property owned by
the plaintiff causing considerable damage. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit against the
defendant to recover his lost gains.

Issue

 The issue in Rylands V/S Fletcher the case is if the defendant would be held liable for
an act executed by another.

1)
Judgement:
Regardless of the defendant's plea, the House of Lords considers the respondent
answerable for all harms endured in the mine. As per the law forced on this case, if
an individual submits any activity with a conceivably unsafe medication on their
reason, the person in question will be expected to take responsibility for any
mischief caused by the spillage of the said material, if it got away because of their
ineptitude.

https://lawbhoomi.com/analysis-of-absolute-liability-in-reference-to-ucc-vs-uoi/
https://www.accaglobal.com/gb/en/student/exam-support-resources/fundamentals-exams-
study-resources/f4/technical-articles/tort-negligence.html#:~:text=Proximity%20simply
%20means%20that%20the,owe%20the%20duty%20to%20another.