S.K. Shangtung lalkum v.

state of mansuri

It was held that an act of god as an exception o the rule of strict liability
well not be available in case of death due to falling of high tension electric
wire from pole due to lightning stroke or storm.

Consent of the plaintiff - Where the plaintiff has consented to the

accumulation of dangerous thing on defendants land. The liability uncle
strict liability rule will not arise. There is a maxim volenti non fit injuria will
be applicable in this exception

Such consent is implied where the source of danger is for common benefit
for the plaintiff and defendant.

E.g. when two people are living on the different floors of the same building
each of them is deemed to have consented to the installation of things of
common benefit such as writer system, electricity wiring. When water is
collected for common benefit of plaintiff and defendant then defendant will
not be liable for any injury caused by escape of water.

In a famous case of carstairs v. tailor. The plaintiff hired ground floor of a

building from the defendant the upper floor of building was occupied by the
defendant himself. Water stored on the upper floor leaked without any
negligence of defendant and it causes some injury to plaintiffs good.

It was held that water had been stored for the benefit of both plaintiff and
respondent and therefore respondent is not liable.

Act of 3rd party – If any harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger
who is neither the defendant nor his servant then defendant will not be
liable for any injury caused due to that stranger.

In a famous case of boxe v. jubb, the overflow from the defendant’s

reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by stranger then defendant
was not held liable for any injury caused to the plaintiff.

In a famous case of MP electricity board v. Shail kumar, it was held that the
rule of strict liability was applied and the defense of act of stranger was not
allowed in the cases of electricity wires falling on passenger or on general
public it was held in this case that the electricity board is liable and
responsible for the maintenance of electric poles and wires because it is
the duty of board to maintain the standards of electric supple as well as
buyer.

In this case authorities which are concerned with dangerous commodities

have extra duty to check out measures to prevent such mishaps.

In state of mizorum v H. lalram, it was held that compensation could be

awarded for the negligence on the part of the electricity department for
fluctuation of current that occurred die to fault in transformer and which
causes damage to television, refrigerators and other electric apparatus. It
will be immature that the injury caused inside the house

Statutory authority - any act under statutory authority will be a good

defense under strict liability

NW utilities ltd. v. London guarantee and co., it was held that statutory
authority can’t be pleaded as a defense when there is negligence on the
part of state.

In green v. Chelsea water works co. , the defendant co. had a statutory
duty to maintain continuous supply of water. A main pipeline burst without
any negligence on the part of company and as a result plaintiff premises
were flooded with water. It was held that the company will not be liable
under strict liability.
City of v. Marrow – The plaintidd who was an experienced but not an
expert summer, he hit his head against the bottom of the pool when he took
due into swimming pool.

It was held that the presence of diving board at the pool was an invitation to
use and it was also clear that such use. Therefore the pool authorities were
held liable as there is a danger in pool due to insufficiency of water in the
pool

Delhi Jal board v. Rajkumar – The authorities vested with maintenance of

sewer body system shall be liable for any damage or for the death of their
employee due to any fatal accident as well as for the death of any person
while driving his vehicle over manhole.

Court observed that when a manhole is contracted the authorities must see
to it not only that it is properly covered but also that the manhole is in line
with the surface of the road . It is the duty of the authority to construct and
maintain manholes properly.

Municipal Corp. of Delhi v. Subhguanti – The buildings adjoining highway

must be maintained in such a condition as not to be dangerous for the
users. If any injurydue to dangerous structure is caused to the users of
highway the owner will be liable for damages.

Wilchick v. Marks and sibestone - The landlord is liable when he has

undertaken a duty to repair the building whenever necessary. In the above
case it was held that even though between the landlord and the tenant
there was no such agreement as regards the repair but they had reserved
the right to enter the premises and to the repairs whenever necessary.

Landlord would be liable to the third party if he had been injured due to lack
of eair of building.

Obligation towards trespasser

In a famous case of Robert Addy v. Deembreck. This case defines a

trespasser according to itone who goes upon land without invitation of any
sort and whose presence is either unknown to the prophereighiers or if
known then it is particularly objected.

If the occupiers is acquitted to the frequent act of trespass then is deemed

that head has licensed the entry of others on the land.

In lorry v. Walker – the defendant was the occupier of the land across
which the member of the public had used a shortcut towards the railway
station. The defendant on certain occasions objected to this practice but
had taken no effective steps to stop this trespass. One day the plaintidd
while crossing the field was seriously injured by a horse which the
defendant had kept their without any notice.

It was held that the plaintiff deeded to be there with trait permission of the
defendant and therefore the plaintiff was deemed to be a licensee so the
defendant was liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff.
Obligation towards children

An occupier must be careful in case of children in comparison to adults.

What is obvious danger for and adult may be a trap for children. It means
adult may aware of some danger for which children may not.

The occupier must fraud he child visitor even against such dangers from
which the adults do not need any protection.

Glogoov co. V. Tailore – The defendant controlled a public park, a child of

7 years of age picked up and ate some attractive looking berries on a shrub
and died because the berries were poisonous. The defendant had not
given sufficient warning about the deadly character of the berries. Father of
diseases child brought a suit in which the defendants were held liable.
Lord Summer said the child had no right to pluck the berries but at the
same time occupier had no right to expose such dangerous berries in the
approach of a child. The father of the child had duty to take care of his child
but in a place like public park everybody is not known to the
dangerousness of such berries as it was a hidden danger and the occupier
is always liable for the hidden danger which he had in his property.

If the occupier placed a notice board near to the shrubs then the sole
liability of occupier may be guarded.

Liability for dangerous animal

If a person transfer some dangerous animals to another person and the

another person may be injured by the animal transferred to him sometimes
the animal maybe further transferred to the 3 rd person and the 3rd person
may be injured by the animal.

Here, the liability of the transfer of animal will be discussed under 2 heads .

1. Liability towards immediate transferee.

2. Liability towards ultimate transferee.
Liability towards immediate transferee – The animals may be
transferred from one person to another either under a contract or by way of
gift or loan.

When the animal is transferred under a contract the liability of parties is

regulated by the term of contract.

The terms and conditions in a control may be express or implied.

An implied condition is that the goods shall reasonably fit for the purpose
for which they are required by the buyer. If the goods contain harmful
ingredients causing damage to the purchaser the seller is liable for that.

Grand v. Australian Knitting mills: Clothes causing irritation to the body due
to chemical present on it.

Frost v. Aylesberry berry co. – The milk cause disease b it contained

typhoid germs the seller is liable.

Liability towards ultimate transferee – To understand the ultimate

transferee.

X transfers a dangerous animal to y and y transfers the same to z. here, Z I

ultimate transferee and if Z is injured then how X can make liable for the
injury to Z.

To conclude the above liability towards an ultimate transferee we consider

two important conditions:

1. Liability for fraud.

2. Liability for negligence.

1) Liability for fraud – Fraud is a tort against a person who causes injury to
some person due to his false statement. Here, it is not necessary that
the person making a false statement makes it directly to the person
deceives/injured.
For example if A makes a fraudulent statement to B having reasons to
believe that the statement may be acted upon either by B or by C. In this
case if C acts upon the statement and is a Victim of fraudulent statement
then A will be liable towards C.

The famous case of Langridge v. Lavie – The defendant sold a gun to the
plaintiff’s father for the use of plaintiff and stated that the gun had been
made by a renowned manufacturer and was quiet safe. While using the
gun it burst and the plaintiff got injured.

It was held that even though the fraudulent statement was by defendant to
plaintiff’s father yet the plaintiff was entitled to sue against defendant
because the statement made but defendant was intended, fraudulent whih
was communicated to plaintiff and on which he had acted.

2) Liability for negligence – For the purpose of liability of the transferor

towards the ultimate transferee for negligence we consider 3 main
points:
a. Things must be dangerous per se.
b. Things not dangerous per se but actually dangerous and known to
transferor.
c. Things neither dangerous per se not known to be dangerous to
transferee.

a) Things dangerous per se : The things which are dangerous in

themselves or dangerous according to the circumstances are knows as
dangerous per se. There is duty of person who holds the thing to save
others who are likely to come in contact with the things which are
dangerous per se. For e.g. loaded firearms, poisons, explosives, etc.

Dixon v. Bell – he defendant caused his servant who was a girl of 13

years of age to be put in possession of gun. The girl while playing
caused injury to plaintiff who was a boy of 19 years of age by pulling the
trigger, the defendant was held liable for negligent act.
b) Things not dangerous per se but actually known to be dangerous
by the transferor – A transferor if selling some dangerous items has a
duty to warn the buyer about the danger and the precaution against the
things of failure of which makes transferor liable.

Farrant v. barns –The defendant delivered a box containing nitric acid

to the carrier but neither informed the carrier about the content of the
box nor warned him about the dangerous nature of the contents. Plaintiff
who was the servant of the carrier carried the same box on his shoulder,
the box burst causing burn injuries, it was held that the defendant was
liable.