Hale v Jenning Bros,

The owner of the fairground was held to be responsible for a chair-o-plane which became detached
from the roundabout, because the act of the man ‘fooling about on this device’ was: ‘just the kind of
behaviour which ought to have been anticipated as being a likely act with a percentage of users of the
apparatus.’
The plaintiff recovered damages for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Sahai J., observed: “Truly speaking entire law of torts is founded and structured on morality that no
one has a right to injure or harm other intentionally or even innocently.

State Of Punjab vs Modern Cultivators, Ladwa on 8 May, 1964

Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 17, 1964 SCR (8) 273
Author: A Sarkar
Bench: Sarkar, A.K.
Sarkar, J.): (i) That the rule of res ipsa
loquitur was applicable to the facts of this case because
there would not have been a breachin the banks of the canal
if those in management took proper care andthe breach
itself would be prima facie proof of negligence.