Name: Nurnahar Akther

ID: 20-42828-1
Section: A
Course: Law of Tort

1. ‘X’ employed ‘Y’ and his father- ‘Y’ injured his father while backing the lorry and the
father sued ‘X’ for the act of the servant ‘Y’ and obtained damages. Then ‘X’ sued ‘Y’
for indemnity. Is ‘X’ entitled to the same amount given to ‘Y’s father.

Answer: The name of the case of the above question is “Lister Vs Romford Ice & Cold
Shortage Co. Ltd. (1957)”. Where master is vicariously liable may claim an indemnity. It
is one of the joint tort feasors.

Issue: Whether “X’’ is liable to get same amount to given to “Y’’ father.

Fact: Here X employed Y and his father. Y injured his father while backing the lorry and
father sued X for the act of servant Y and obtained damage. Though then X sued Y for
indemnity. We know the master is liable in such situation and get indemnity.

Held: X is entitled to the same amount given to Y’s father.

2. The defendant’s servant left a horse van unattended in a busy city street. A mischievous
boy threw a stone at the horse and caused them to bolt and suddenly defendants horse
carriage was free in a busy city street. The plaintiff, a reasonable man, came forward to
rescue as there were many women and children around and was injured himself. There ls
imminent danger and the plaintiff came forward as a good citizen and out of moral
pressure. Will it be a defence? 

Answer: The name of the case mentioned in the question is “Hayness V. Harwood
(1934)”. In innocent sports, in such of rescue cases Volenti non-fit injuria or Defence of
leave & license won’t apply if-
1. There is imminent danger.
2. The plaintiff came forward as a good citizen or out of moral pressure.
Fact: The defendant’s servant left a horse van unattended in a busy city street. A mischievous
boy threw a stone at the horse and caused them to bolt and suddenly defendant’s horse carriage
was free in a busy city street. The plaintiff, a reasonable man came forward to rescue as there
were many women and children around and was injured himself. There is imminent danger and
the plaintiff came forward as a good citizen and out of moral pressure. So the maxim will not be
a defence.
Held: The maxim will not be a defence.

3. A portion of a bridge footpath was enclosed for seats to view a boat race the plaintiff to
assert his right to use the footpath was stopped by a policeman to pass the enclosure to
proceed further. Is plaintiffs’ rights infringed? If so, for what tort and what are
the defenses for it?  

Answer: The name of the case mentioned in the question is Birdd v. Jones (1845) 7
Queens Bench 742.

Fact: A portion of a Bridge footpath was enclosed for seats to view a boat race the
plaintiff to assert his right to use the footpath was stopped by a policeman to pass the
enclosure to proceed further.

Held: This was not false imprisonment as the plaintiff could walk on the road then the
footpath as there was no complete restraint.

1. The restraint must not be expressly or impliedly authorized by law. If direction by

law no action lies.
2. The Imprisonment maybe by the defendant or his servant or agent.
The plaintiff must prove that there was actual application of force (used) or threat of force.
That the plaintiff must prove that he was restrained from liberty for however short duration of
time if may be.
Conclusion: So, in this case, From the Battery of trespass we got to know that the deprivation of
liberty must be complete means limits one’s freedom of movement in all directions or preventing
to proceed in every direction.

4. A badly written story, written by a grocer’s assistant was published by the defendant,
purporting to have been written by the plaintiff (a well-known writer). Those who would
read the story as published would infer that the quality of the plaintiff’s work had
deteriorated. Is the defendant liable? Give reasons for your answer. 

Answer: The name of the case mentioned in the question is Ridge Vs English Illustrated
Magazine (1913) 29 T.L.R. 592.

We know in libel it involves a publication of false and defamatory material in some permanent or
lasting form. A book, magazine, caricature, effigy, a talking film are also public play.

Fact: A badly written story, written by grocer’s assistant was published by the defendant,
purporting to have been written by the plaintiff (a well-known writer). Those who would read the
story as published would infer that the quality of the plaintiff’s work had deteriorated.
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to damage for libel.

5. ‘X’ & ‘Y’ were neighbors. Defendant had a factory in his land and plaintiff had a coal
mine in his land. ‘Y’ for his factory established a reservoir to generate power. Unknown
to the defendant there were some disused shafts on defendant’s land which went into the
plaintiff’s mine. Water escaped from the reservoir and the plaintiffs mine was flooded.
Advice ‘Y’
Answer: The name of the case mentioned in the question is Rylands Vs. Fletcher (1868). In
absolute liability the defendant is liable irrespective of any fault or ill motive.
Fact : ‘X’ & ‘Y’ were neighbors. Defendant had a factory in his land and plaintiff had a coal
mine in his land. ‘Y’ for his factory established a reservoir to generate power. Unknown to the
defendant there were some disused shafts on defendant’s land which went into the plaintiff’s
mine. Water escaped from the reservoir and the plaintiffs mine was flooded.
Held: The defendant was liable for damages in tort although he was not negligent in any way.