Torts Cases

~ Aamnaya Jagannath Mishra

National Law University Odisha

Context Name Judgment

NATURE OF A TORT
1. Difference between Tort Donoghue The manufacturer had breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff
and Breach of Contract Vs.
2. Privity of Contract and Stevenson
Tortious Liability

Privity of Contract and Winterbottom As the plaintiff was not in contract with the defendant, court ruled in favor of
Tortious Liability Vs. defendant on the basis of the doctrine of privity of contract
Wright

Law of Tort by Winfield Ashby vs White Even though there was no physical damage caused to the plaintiff his legal right
to vote had been infringed upon, hence verdict was in support of plaintiff

Jay Laxmi Salt Work (P)

Ltd.
Vs
The State of Gujarat
Injuria sine damno Ashby vs White
Bhim Singh vs State of J. &
K.
Damnum sine injuria Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd.
vs McGregor, Gow & Co.
Ushaben vs. Bhagyalaxmi
Chitra Mandir
Inevitable accident National Coal Board vs.
J.E. Evans & Co.
Holmes vs. Mather
Necessity Cope vs Sharpe
Leigh vs Gladstone
Conversion Consolidated Co. vs Curtis
Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff as he had been deprived of a constitutional
right to attend Assembly Session and fundamental right under Article 21 was
also infringed.
Court ruled in favor of defendant as defendant was lawfully expanding trade and
increasing profits
Court ruled in favor of defendant and rejected injunction request by plaintiff as
hurting religious feelings does not qualify as a legal wrong
Court didn’t hold defendants liable as they had no knowledge of the cables
present underneath the property and hence it was an inevitable accident
Court didn’t hold the defendant guilty as the defendant had taken reasonable
amount of care and had no malicious intention behind hurting the plaintiff; it
was simply an inevitable accident.
Defendant was not held liable for trespass as the wrong had been committed out
of necessity to stop the spreading of a fire
Defendant was not held liable as the actions undertaken, that is, force feeding of
the plaintiff, a prisoner, was necessary to keep the plaintiff alive.
Defendant was held liable as acting in good faith is not a defense for the act of
conversion
Defamation Cassidy vs. Daily Mirror Defendant was held liable for defamation as the intent of the defendant behind
Newspapers Ltd. the publishing of the words is not relevant when the reputation of the plaintiff
has suffered.

GENERAL DEFENCES
VNFI R vs. Donovan Court did not hold the defendant liable as the plaintiff had consented to the harm
inflicted upon her

Hall vs Brooklands Auto Court did not hold defendants liable as the plaintiff had given an implied consent
Racing Club and harm caused to him was foreseeable given the nature of the sport

Consent must not be surpassed Lakshmi Rajan vs Malar Court ruled against the defendant as the consent to operation by the woman
(VNFI) Hospital Ltd didn’t mean consent was given to removal of uterus

Consent obtained by fraud Hegarty vs. Shine Court ruled in favor of defendant as mere concealment of facts does not
(VNFI) constitute fraud
R vs Williams Court ruled in favor of plaintiff as consent for sexual intercourse was obtained
fraudulently by the defendant, who had said it was to improve the plaintiff’s
voice
Consent obtained under Bowater vs Rowley Regis Court ruled in favor of plaintiff as his consent was obtained out of compulsion as
compulsion (VNFI) Corporation the alternative was to lose his job. Thus, his consent wasn’t free.

Mere knowledge does not Plaintiff knew that taking the horse out could lead to injuries being dealt to him
imply assent (VNFI) but that didn’t imply his consent as he was doing it out of compulsion
Mere knowledge does not Smith vs Baker As there was mere knowledge of risk, no consent was implied and defendants
imply assent (VNFI) were held liable

Consent is not given to Slater vs. Clay Cross Ltd. The damage to the plaintiff was caused due to the defendant’s driver’s
negligence of defendant negligence and hence, defence of VNFI was not applicable.

Rescue case (VNFI Exception) Haynes vs Harwood VNFI was not applied as the actions undertaken by the plaintiff were to put an
end to imminent danger to the women and children present on the road.

Wagner vs International Since the plaintiff was in the process of rescuing his friend, who was thrown out
Railway Co. of a moving train, when he sustained injuries, VNFI is not applicable.

Plaintiff the wrongdoer Bird vs. Holbrook Plaintiff, a trespasser over the defendant’s land, was entitled to claim
compensation from the defendant who had set a spring gun on his property
without notice and thus caused injury to the plaintiff

Act of God Ramalinga Nadar vs. Act of God defence was rejected as the actons of an unruly mob are a result of
Narayana Reddiar human intervention and not natural forces

Nichols vs Marsland Defendant was not held liable as the loss caused to the plaintiff was not due to
negligence on the defendant’s part but due to the extraordinary amount of
rainfall
Occurrence must be
extraordinary (Act of God)1
Kallulal vs Hemchand Defendant was held liable because even though the harm had been caused due to
rainfall, it was not extraordinary in nature.
No excessive use of force
(Private Defence)
Private Defence
Mistake
Interference of the defendant
not necessary (Necessity)
Statutory Authority
Negligence in carrying out
statutory authority (Statutory
Authority)
Bird vs. Holbrook
Ramanuja Mudali vs. M.
Gangan
Creswell vs. Sirl
Consolidated Co. vs. Curtis
Carter vs. Thomas
Kirk vs. Gregory
Vaughan vs. The Taff Vale
Railway Co.
Hammersmith Rail Co. vs.
Brand
Smith vs. London and The
South Western Railway
Company
Defendant was held liable as the use of spring guns against trespassers to
property is an disproportionate form of self defence
Defendant was not given the defence of private defence as the laying down of
live electric wires to repel trespassers, that too without any notices or signs, is a
disproportionate response to the tort of trespass to property
Case was ruled in favor of defendants as the shooting of the dog was justified to
protect the property of the defendants, i.e., the sheep and pigs
Defendant was held liable as he had auctioned goods that did not belong to the
seller. His honest mistake was not taken into account.
The defendant trespassed against the plaintiff’s property to extinguish a fire. His
actions were however not covered by defence of necessity as firemen were
already present.
The defendant was held liable as she had trespassed against the property, i.e.,
jewelry of A, by moving it to a room where she thought it to be safer. However
it got stolen from there. Her actions were not deemed necessary and she was
held liable.
The defendant was not held liable as the operation of railway was governed by a
statutory act and hence the fire caused by the defendant was defended by
statutory authority.
Though the value of the plaintiff’s property had diminished considerably due to
the noise emitted by the functioning of railways nearby, the same was covered
by statutory authority and the case was ruled in favor of defendant.
The defendant’s servants had negligently left dry grass near railway tracks. The
same caught fire and consequently set fire to the plaintiff’s cottage. Statutory
Authority defence is not applicable since negligence is present.
Conditional authority given by
statute (statutory authority)
Duty of care to the plaintiff
Duty depends on the
reasonable foreseeability of
injury
Metrolpolitan Asylum A hospital erected to fight a smallpox epidemic was set up in a residential area,
District vs. Hill thereby causing risk of infection to the general public. Injunction was filed
against the hospital, and statutory authority defence was not applicable since the
statute provided conditional authority
REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE
Donoghue vs. Stevenson
Winterbottom vs. Wright
S. Dhanaveni v State of Victim fell into a pit filled with water and grabbed hold of an electric pole with
Tamil Nadu live current due to leakage of electricity. Defendant was held liable for
negligence.

No liability when injury not
foreseeable
Dr. M. Mayi Gowda vs
State of Karnataka
Cates vs Mongini Bros
Plaintiff and family took an elephant joy-ride. After taking multiple rounds, as
the plaintiff and family was getting down, the elephant panicked and ran
forward. The plaintiff fell to the ground and sustained serious injuries which
resulted in loss of eye sight. Since this was a unique event and had happened for
the first time, the defendant took the defence of inevitable accident and was not
held liable.
A lady visitor to a restaurant was injured by a ceiling fan that fell on her. The
defect in the fan was a latent one and hence it was not foreseeable on the part of
the restaurant to know that it would fall. Hence they were not held liable.

Glasgow Corp. vs. Muir
Manageress of the defendant Corporation permitted a picnic party. Two
members of the party were carrying a big urn containing 6-9 gallons of tea
through a passage where children were buying sweets. One of the members lost
his grip on the urn and six children were injured. Since the manageress couldn’t
have possibly foreseen this incident taking place, she wasn’t held liable for
negligence.
Reasonable foreseeability does Sukhraji vs. State Road
not mean remote possibility
Standard of care required
The plaintiff’s son, a 14 year old, got down from a moving tramcar where there
Transportation Calcutta was no stop and got run down by an omnibus that was trying to overtake the
tramcar. Even though due care was taken by the driver of the omnibus and he
applied brakes immediately, the incident could not be averted. It is reasonable
for the driver of the omnibus to take for granted that no passengers would
disembark from a moving tramcar that too without a spot, hence the incident was
not foreseeable and the driver was not held liable.
SK Devi vs. Uttam Bhoi A boy of 7-8 years was hit by a truck in broad daylight (2:30pm). It was held
that the driver should have taken greater care in areas frequented by children as
their behavior is unpredictable. On the basis of the injuries received, negligence
on the part of the driver was presumed and he was held liable.
Latimer v AEC Ltd. Due to exceptionally heavy rains, the defendant’s factory was flooded with
water. An oily substance got mixed up with the flooded water. After the water
drained away, an oily film remained on the floor of the factory, making it very
slippery. To counter this, sawdust was spread as much as possible over the floor.
However patches of oily floor were left due to lack of sawdust supplies. The
plaintiff slipped in one such patch and sued for negligence and claimed that the
factory should have been closed as a precaution. The court held that the same
was too extreme a precaution and that the defendants had taken due precaution
that was expected from them, hence not holding them liable.
Kerala State Electricity A 3 year old boy came into contact with an overhead electric wire which sagged
Board vs Suresh Kumar to 3 feet above the ground and received burn injuries due to electrocution. It was
held that the defendants were liable for negligence as they had a duty to keep the
wire 15 feet above the ground and they were also held liable for breach of
statutory duty

Res Ipsa Loquitur
Collapse of built structure
K Nagireddi vs Government The plaintiff owned an orchard with 285 fruit bearing trees. The government
of Andhra Pradesh constructed a canal under the Nagarjunasagar project. Due to soaking excess
water from the canal, each and every one of the trees died. The plaintiff claimed
that the State should have cemented the banks and the floor of the canal to
prevent such a situation and the State was negligent in not doing so. The court
held that the construction of canals, especially in Indian conditions, was a great
necessity and without them the country would be a desert. Hence it was held that
the State was not negligent by not cementing the banks and floor of the canal.
Nirmala vs. Tamil Nadu High tension wire running over a farm snapped and the plaintiff’s husband
State Electricity Board stepped on the same and died from electrocution. It was held that the defendants,
who were responsible for the maintenance of said wire, had been negligent by
failing to maintain the wire properly and not providing a device which made sure
that in the event that the wire snapped, it would stop transmitting electric
current.
Klaus Mittelbachert vs East The plaintiff got injured when he dived into the hotel swimming pool. It was
India Hotels Ltd. held that the defendants, being the owners and managers of a 5 star hotel, owe a
higher duty of care and standard regarding the quality of structure and service.
Any latent defect present in these would attract strict liability to compensate for
the consequences flowing from the breach of duty.
Chief Executive Officer, The deceased person came in contact with a low hanging live wire and died due
CESCO vs. Prabhati Sahoo to electrocution. There was nothing to show that electricity had been cut off. On
the contrary, electricity was being supplied to a consumer. It was held that in
absence of negligence the incident would not have occurred. The doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur was held applicable in this case. Holding the legal representatives
of the deceased entitled to compensation, the court held that the facts showed
that the incident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the authorities.
Municipal Corporation of Clock Tower opposite of Town Hall in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, collapsed and
Delhi vs. Subhagwanti consequently a number of people died. Clock Tower was owned by the
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, had a life of 40-45 years but had been 80 years
old when it collapsed. The damage present was a patent one and could have been
prevented if periodical checkup had been done by the defendants. Court held that
the Tower fell due to negligence of defendants.

Foreign matter left inside after
surgery
Maxim not applicable if
different inferences possible
(res ipsa loquitur)
Rebuttal of the presumption of
negligence
Nervous Shock
Nirmala vs. Tamil Nadu High tension wire running over a farm snapped and the plaintiff’s husband
Electricity Board stepped on the same and died from electrocution. It was held that the defendants,
who were responsible for the maintenance of said wire, had been negligent by
failing to maintain the wire properly and not providing a device which made sure
that in the event that the wire snapped, it would stop transmitting electric
current. Moreover, no elementary precaution in the form of a periodic checkup
was taken.
AH Khodwa vs State of Patient had undergone a sterilization operation after childbirth. Doctor left a mop
Maharashtra inside abdomen which led to peritonitis and subsequent death. Presumption of
negligence by the doctor was taken and the State running the hospital was also
held liable.
SK Allah Bakhas vs Auto rickshaw driver attempted to cross unmanned railway crossing when the
Dhirendra Nath train was approaching and was quite nearby. The vehicle got hit and dragged by
the train, injuring the occupants. Here, the damage would not have occurred but
for the negligence of the driver. Hence, the driver’s negligence is presumed and
maxim is applicable.
Walkelin vs. London and The dead body of a man was found near a railway crossing. The plaintiff, the
South Western Railway Co. deceased man’s widow, claimed compensation from the defendants for
negligence on the train driver’s part. However, the maxim could not be applied
as there was no evidence to support that the man was ran over by the train and
that he had not run into the side of a moving train. The latter case would not
have resulted in liability of defendants. Hence, maxim was not applied.
Nagamani vs. Corporation A ventilator iron post on a pavement, owned by the defendant, fell on a passerby
of Madras for unknown reasons, causing head injuries and death. Negligence was presumed
on part of the defendant, but the same was rebutted by proof shown by the
defendant that due care and precaution had been taken to ensure that the post
was in good shape and posed no danger at all.
Kallulal vs. Hemchand The wall of a house adjoining the highway collapsed on a day with foreseeable
amount of rain. Negligence was presumed on the part of defendant who tried to
rebut with defence of Act of God. However, the defence of act of God doesn’t
hold as the amount of rain was normal and foreseeable.
Wilkinson vs Downton Plaintiff suffered nervous shock when she was old by the defendant, as a
practical joke, that her husband had broken both of his legs in an accident.

Remote and proximate
damage
Test of reasonable foresight
Test of directness
Defendant was held liable for negligence
Dulieu vs White and Sons The defendant’s servant negligently drove horse van into a public house, and the
plaintiff, a pregnant woman, suffered nervous shock and gave premature birth to
a stillborn child. The defendant was held liable for the nervous shock.
Haynes v Harwood
Lynch v Nurdin Defendant left a horse van unattended. Children started playing in and around
the van. One child mounted the van while another set it into motion. The
plaintiff, the child mounted on the van, was injured. It was held that the acts of
the mischievous children do not qualify as intervening acts as they can be
anticipated beforehand.
Rigby v Hewit The plaintiff was travelling on top of an omnibus when he was hit by the
defendants’ omnibus, which was being driven rashly and negligently. Due to the
collision the plaintiff’s omnibus hit a lamp post and the plaintiff was thrown off
from the vehicle, resulting in injuries. It was held that the driver of the
defendants’ omnibus had been negligent in his conduct.
Greenland v Chaplin
Wagon Mound Case The defendants, OT Ltd. were refueling a ship chartered by them, the Wagon
Mound. Due to their negligence, some oil spilt out into the water. At a distance
of 600 feet, the plaintiff, Morts Dock Co., was carrying out repairs on its ship. A
piece of molten metal fell into the water and ignited the oil around the ship being
repaired, leading to damage of the wharf and equipment. It was held that since
the damage was unforeseeable, the defendants were not held liable for
negligence.
Smith v London & South
Western Rail Co.
Re Polemis & Furness, Defendant’s employees were loading cargo into a ship. A plank fell into the
Withy & Co. Ltd. cargo hold, causing a spark and subsequently the ship caught fire due to the
petrol vapor present in the hold. It was held that the defendant would be
vicariously liable because even though the damage was not foreseeable, it was a
direct consequence of the defendant’s employees’ actions.
Jacob Mathew v State of Plaintiff’s father was admitted to hospital with cancer. Suddenly, his condition
Punjab worsened and he was not able to breath. An oxygen mask was put on but the
tank was empty. One of the sons of the deceased got another oxygen tank from
an adjoining room; however it took too long to set up, by which the patient had
deceased. The court held the hospital liable and not the doctors, as the
negligence was on part of the hospital by keeping insufficient equipment.
Hucks v Cole Doctor did not treat with penicillin the patient who was suffering from septic
spots on her skin, even though he knew that not treating could lead to a fever.
The actions of the doctor were sanctioned by many other medical professionals;
however, in cases of clear diagnosis and treatment, the same doesn’t matter.
Thus, the court held the doctor liable for negligence
John Oni Akerele v The Doctor administered an overdose of Sobita to the patient, leading to death. Case
King of criminal negligence was filed against him. However, the court held that the
conduct was not against the State in general; degree of negligence wasn’t gross
and can’t be converted to gross or a higher degree than what it was; the most
favorable view of the medical professional’s conduct had to be presumed to
make sure that future conduct of medical professionals is not hindered by fear of
legal action.
Due to the above reasons, the doctor was acquitted.
Juggankhan v State of The accused had administered 24 drops of stramonium and a dhatura leaf to treat
Madhya Pradesh a case of guinea worm in a patient. The accused had not studied the effects of the
same. It was later presented in court that both were poisonous and dhatura leaves
are administered only in ayurvedic medicine, which the accused had not studied.
The court held that when a doctor administers a medicine belonging to a
particular school of medicine, he implies knowledge of the same and if he does
not have knowledge, his conduct qualifies to be rashly and criminally negligent.
IMA v VP Shantha Court differed between ‘profession’ and ‘occupation’. It held that the main
difference lies in the fact that professionals cannot achieve success in each and
every case as the same is governed by factors outside the professional’s control.
This however does not mean that the professional is immune to civil and
criminal cases against him, and he owes a reasonable duty of care, in tort as well
as contract, while giving advice or performing services.
Poonam Verma v Ashwin Pramod Verma, plaintiff’s husband was administered allopathic medicine by a
Patel & Ors. doctor qualified in homeopathic medicine, due to which the patient died. It was

Contract of Service &
Contract for Service
Economic Reality Test and
Control Test not applied
Vicarious Liability
Principle & Agent (Vicarious
Liabilty)
held that the doctor was negligent and was held liable to compensate the
plaintiff.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Mr. Bolam was a voluntary patient at Friern hospital where he agreed to go
through electro-convulsive therapy. He was not administered muscle relaxants
and was not strapped down during the procedure, due to which he suffered
injuries. It was held in court, after listening to medical opinion that the practices
followed at Friern hospital were medically justified, that the court ruled in favor
of the defendant hospital.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Stevenson, Jordon & A management engineer wrote a book using info from his experience in the
Harrison Ltd. v. firm, first as an employee, then as an executive officer. Some was from the
MacDonald & Evans text of lectures that he wrote and delivered and some was material acquired
while on assignment. He died before the publication of his book. Judge held
that employee’s contract was mixed, partly of contract and partly for
contract. Therefore, his lecture is not covered under the Copyrights Act and
material acquired while on work falls under the Act and employer can
claim copyright on it.
Montreal v. Montreal City of Montreal claimed taxes from Montreal Locomotive Ltd. which built
Locomotive Ltd. a plant to manufacture tanks and gun-carriages for the government as its
agent. The question was whether the company was an agent or employee of
the government. Court applied four-fold tests:
 Control test
 Ownership of tools
 Choice of profit
 Risk of loss
Court concluded that company was agent of the government and not liable
to pay taxes.
Lister v. Hosley Hall Ltd. Warden of a boarding house sexually abused some of the boys residing
(Lister’s Case) there and a case was filed. Employer was held vicariously liable since the
wrongful act was committed during the course of employment.
Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Mrs. Lloyd owned two cottages and was not satisfied from the income generated
Co. by them. She approached a firm of solicitors, whose managing clerk advised her

Partners (V. Liability)
Independent contractor (V.
Liability)
Liability of Vehicle Owner
Independent Contractor
Exceptions: employer is held
liable (V. Liability)
to sell the cottages and invest the money in a better way. She was asked to sign
two documents which she though were sale deeds, but were in fact gift deeds in
favor of the managing clerk who sold the cottages himself and used the
proceeds. Both the managing clerk and the company were held liable.
State Bank of India v. Shyama devi’s husband gave cheques to a friend employed in the SBI to deposit
Shyama Devi in Shyama’s account, without taking a receipt. The friend misappropriated the
amount. It was held that since the employee was acting in his own capacity and
not as an employee of the bank, the bank cannot be held liable.
Ormrod v. Crosville Motor Owner of a car asked his friend to drive. While his friend was driving, they had
Service Ltd. an accident with a bus. Owner was held liable.
Tirlok Singh v. Kailash Owner of the motorcycle was not aware of his younger brother using it, hence
Bharti the owner was not held liable when an accident was caused by the brother.
Hamlyn v. Houston & Co. Partner of Houston & Co. bribed a clerk employed by Hamlyn firm, inducing
him to breach contract with Hamlyn and divulge sensitive information regarding
Hamlyn’s business. Both partners of Houston & Co. were held liable for the
acts of one.
Morgan v. Incorporated Plaintiff fell down a lift shaft and got injured while in the premises of the
Central Council defendant organization. Defendant organization was not held liable as lift
maintenance was in the hands of an independent contractor.
B. Govindarajulu v. M.L.A. Lorry was given for repairs. Employee of workshop drove it and caused
Govindaraja Mudaliar accident. Owner of the lorry was not held liable as owner of workshop is an
independent contractor.
Devinder Singh v. Mangal Devinder Singh gave his truck for repairs to a workshop. Owner of workshop
Singh drove the truck, caused accident and injured a cyclist. Owner of truck was not
held liable as owner of workshop is an independent contractor.
Ramu Tularam v. Court held that owner of workshop is not an independent contractor but an
Amichand agent, thus owner of the vehicle would be vicariously liable
Rylands v. Fletcher Fletcher employed contractor to construct a reservoir. Due to negligence of
contractor, water from reservoir burst into neighbor’s coal mines (Rylands).
Fletcher was held strictly liable.
Maganbhai v. Ishwarbhai Chief trustee of temple illegally diverted electricity given for agricultural
purposes to the temple for a month. Job was done by an independent contractor.
After 15 days, service line snapped and a person was injured. Both the trustee

Control test: Hire & Fire
Hospital Cases
Lending of servant
Casual Delegation of authority
Course of employment
and the owner of the meter from which electricity was diverted (with his
knowledge) were held vicariously liable.
Tarry v. Ashton Plaintiff was injured by the fall of a lamp attached to the defendant’s house by
an independent contractor. It was held that the defendant was responsible for
ensuring that the lamp is safely attached and thus he was held liable
Rajasthan State Road RSRTC hired a bus and driver for the bus. Accident was caused by the driver
Transport Corporation v. and RSRTC was held vicariously liable and not the owner as RSRTC was the
K.N. Kothari ‘hirer’.
Hillyer v. St. Hospital was not held vicariously liable for negligence of professional staff
Bartholomew’s Hospital regarding professional care and skill since they lacked power of control over
them.
Cassidy v. Ministry of Hospital was held liable due to negligence of a surgeon employed by the hospital
Health which rendered a patient’s hand useless
Mersey Docks & Harbor Harbor board used to let out cranes for hire. Driver was also employed by them.
Board v. Coggins & While carrying out his duties as a hired help, the driver injures person X while
Griffiths (Liverpool) Ltd. loading a ship. The harbor board was held vicariously liable. It was also held
that burden of proof is in the hands of the master to prove that the power to
control the servant was in the hands of the hirer.
Smt. Kundan Kaur v. Shankar Singh and Tarlok Singh gave truck and driver out as hired help to
Shankar Singh Jawahar Transport Co. While performing his duties, the driver met with an
accident and an employee of Jawahar Transport Co. was killed. It was held that
only services had been transferred to Jawahar Transport & Co., not the control of
the driver, hence, owners were held vicariously liable
Hull v. Lees Defendants had a business of supplying qualified nurses. Due to the negligence
of a nurse, the plaintiff was injured. At the time, the plaintiff had been availing
the defendant’s services and it was held that the plaintiff was having control over
the nurses. Hence, defendants were not held liable.
Ormrod v. Crosville Motor (facts given before)
Service Ltd.
Barwick v. English Joint It was held that master should be answerable to the acts committed by the
Stock Bank servant/agent while they are doing the work delegated by master.
National Insurance Co., Owner of car left servants in charge of maintaining it while he was out of town.
Kanpur v. Yogendra Nath One servant caused accident while driving the car to petrol pump. Master was

Fraud of servant
Theft by servant
Theft of goods bailed to
master
Theft by servant
Theft of goods not bailed to
master
Mistake of servant
Negligence of servant
held vicariously liable as act had been committed in the course of employment.
Barwick v. English Joint (given above)
Stock Bank
Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & (given above)
Co.
State Bank of India v. (given above)
Shyama Devi
Cheshire v. Bailey It was held that if a servant commits theft of a third person’s goods that were
bailed to his/her master, then master cannot be held vicariously liable as the act
committed by servant is outside the course of employment
Morris v. C.W. Martin & Servant stole a fur coat that was given to him for the purpose of cleaning. Court
Sons Ltd. held that the act was wrongful and was done within the course of employment
and hence, master was held vicariously liable.
Roop Lal v. Union of India Military jawans took firewood from plaintiff’s property for making camp fire. It
was held that jawans are servants of Union of India and theft had occurred in the
course of employment, making the Union of India liable.
Poland v. Parr & Sons A carter believed that some boys were stealing sugar from his employer’s
wagon. In order to protect the sugar, he hit one of the boys, who lost his balance,
came under the wheels of the cart and lost his leg. The mistake of the carter had
caused damage and master was held liable for the same
Bayley v. Manchester, A porter of the defendant railway mistakenly believed that the plaintiff is aboard
Sheffield and Lincolnshire the wrong train and pulled him violently out of the train, causing some injuries
Ry. in the process to the plaintiff. The act of the porter was within the course of
employment and the railway was held liable.
Williams v. Jones The defendant’s servant was working in the plaintiff’s shed. While working, the
servant lit his pipe and negligently burned down the shed. It was held that the act
committed by the servant was not in his course of employment and hence the
master was not held liable.
Century Insurance Co. v. Driver of petrol lorry lit a cigarette and threw the burning butt on the floor,
Northern Ireland Road causing an explosion and damage to property of plaintiff. It was held that the
Transport Board cigarette was held during the course of employment thus the driver’s employer
was also held liable.
Acts outside the course of Storey v. Ashton On his way to his employer’s office, an employee was induced by a colleague to
employment detour and run an errand for the colleague. While taking said detour, the
employee met with an accident. Master was not held vicariously liable as the act
was committed outside the course of employment.
State Bank of India v. (given above)
Shyama Devi
Beard v. London General At the end of his journey, the driver of a bus went to have dinner. During his
Omnibus Co. absence, the conductor attempted to drive and turn the bus around for the next
journey. While doing so he caused an accident and injured the plaintiff. The
defendant company was not held liable as the conductor had acted outside his
course of employment
Negligent delegation of Rickets v. Thomas Tilling Driver of a bus permitted the conductor to turn the bus to the right direction for
authority by the servant Ltd. the remainder of the journey. Conductor caused an accident and injured the
plaintiff while doing so. Master was held vicariously liable for the negligent
delegation done by the driver.
Headmistress, Govt. Girls Plaintiff was a 9th standard student in a government school. ‘Aya’ of the school
High School v. had a duty to arrange water for the schoolchildren. Instead of bringing the water
Mahalakshmi herself. ‘Aya’ delegated the task to the plaintiff who brought the water in a
plastic pot on the carrier of a cycle. While the plaintiff was placing the pot on the
carrier, the spring of the carrier came out forcibly, hitting the plaintiff in her eye
and she lost her right eye. Both the school and the ‘Aya’ were held liable fpr the
negligent delegation of authority by the servant
Baldeo Raj v. Deowati Driver of a truck allowed the conductor to drive under his supervision due to
which an accident was caused. Both the driver and his master were held
vicariously liable.
Indian Insurance Co. v. Driver of a motor vehicle belonging to state government gave control of the
Radhabai steering wheel to an unauthorized person and an accident was caused. State
government was held vicariously liable.
Amruta Dei v. State of Officer in charge of Govt. jeep did not object to the same being driven by some
Orissa other person. Government was held liable for accident caused by third person.
Gyarsi Devi v. Sain Das Driver of a truck carrying stones went away to have a meal and instructed the
cleaner to unload the truck at the required place and unload it. The cleaner drove
negligently and caused death and the driver’s master was held vicariously liable
Ilkiw v. Samuels Lorry driver employed by the defendant permitted a stranger to drive the lorry.
Accident caused by the stranger made the defendant liable.
Gwillium v. Twist Driver of an omnibus was stopped by a policeman on suspicion of being drunk.
Driver and conductor delegated authority to drive the bus to a stranger to the
bus’s destination. Stranger caused accident and the master of the driver was not
held liable as it was decided by the court that the master had not given authority
to servant to delegate his work.
Question of master’s liability on account of negligent delegation of work by the
servant was not raised, otherwise master would have been liable.
Kilari Mammi v. Barium Driver of a jeep left the key in ignition slot and went to a shop. A third person
Chemicals Ltd. drove the jeep and caused an accident. Driver’s master was held vicariously
liable for driver’s negligence.
Englehart v. Farrant & Co. Driver of a cart had been given instructions to not leave the cart unattended.
However, the cart was left unattended under the care of a boy who did not know
how to drive it. The boy attempted to turn the cart around and in the process
caused damage to the plaintiff’s carriage. Driver’s negligence made the master
vicariously liable for the damage caused.
Sitaram v. Santanuprasad Owner of a car lent it to another person for it to be used as a.taxi. This person
employed a cleaner, and trained him to drive the taxi. He gave the taxi to the
cleaner for the purpose of a driving test, during which the cleaner caused an
accident. It was held that since the cleaner had been using the car for his own
purpose, the same was not within his course of employment, hence the owner of
the car was not held vicariously liable.
Limpus v. London General Defendant’s driver was expressly instructed not to race with or cause obstruction
Omnibus Co. to other omnibuses. Driver obstructed another omnibus and caused accident.
Master was held vicariously liable even though the driver had been expressly
prohibited.
Twine v. Beans Express Defendants provided a commercial van and driver for the use of a bank, the
Ltd. driver still remaining the defendants’ servant. The van had two notices
prohibiting unauthorized persons from taking lift in the van and prohibiting the
driver from letting any unauthorized persons inside the van. The driver gave lift
to an unauthorized person who died due to the negligence of the driver. It was
held that the driver had been operating outside the course of his employment and

Giving lift to unauthorized 3rd
party
(position in India)
Giving lift with justification
the masters were not held vicariously liable.
Twine v. Beans Express (given above)
Ltd.
Conway v. George Wimpey Defendants had provided lorries for the transport of their employees to various
& Co. Ltd. sites. Notice was displayed in every lorry that only employees were allowed to
use the transport service and any third person would do so at his own risk and
the drivers were informed about the same as well. The plaintiff, a third party,
took lift on one of the lorries and was injured due to the driver’s negligence. The
masters could not be held liable as the driver had acted outside the course of
employment.
Mariyam Jacob v. Hematlal Driver of water tanker belonging to state gave lift to an unauthorized person,
who was killed due to an accident. Since there was no express prohibition
imposed on the driver against giving lifts, the State was held vicariously liable
Bhaiyalal v. Rajrani Twine v. Beans Express Ltd. precedent was followed and master was not held
vicariously liable. However this was overruled in the next case below.
Narayanlal v. Rukhmanibai It was held that the act of a servant employed to drive a vehicle and giving lift to
a third person and/or in disregard of a statutory rule or prohibition will make the
master vicariously liable.
Prithi Singh v. Binda Ram Same thing held as in the above case
Premwati v. State of Driver of a jeep took it from a workshop but instead of taking it to the garage, he
Rajasthan went on a joy-ride and gave third persons lift. Accident was caused and two of
the unauthorized persons were killed.
Held that act of driving the vehicle is in the course of employment and not the
act of giving lift hence the master should not be vicariously liable for any injury
caused to the person taking lift.
Pushpabai v. Ranjit Ginning Manager of ginning company was driving to some location on company business
& Pressing Co. and gave lift to another employee of the company. In an accident caused due to
the negligence of the driver (manager), the employee taking lift was killed. It
was held that giving lift to a co-worker was within the authority given to the
employees of the company, hence making the company vicariously liable.
Young v. Edward Box & The plaintiff was given a lift in one the defendant’s lorries with the consent of
Co. Ltd. the driver’s superior. Plaintiff was injured in the course of journey due to

Doctrine of Common
Employment (England)
(India)
Trespass not applicable
Use of force (battery)
Use of force without lawful
justification (battery)
Assault
Priestley v. Fowler
Governor General in
Council v. Constance Zena negligence of a fellow employee, a railway driver. Privy Council held that the
Wells
TRESPASS TO PERSON
Letang v. Cooper
Innes v. Wylie
Stanley v. Powell
Pratap Daji v. B.B. & C.I.
Ry.
Cherubin Gregory v. State
of Bihar
P. Kader v. K.A.
Alagarswami
Bavisetti Venkata Surya
Rao v. Nandipati Muthayya take payment but agriculturist was not able to pay, The munsiff demanded
negligence of lorry driver and it was held that authority to give lift had been
given by the superior, an employee of the company, hence company was held
vicariously liable.
Plaintiff, who was defendant’s servant, was injured due to the breaking down of
an overloaded carriage that was under the charge of a fellow servant. Since both
wrongdoer and injured persons were servants of the defendant, doctrine of
common employment was applicable and defendant was not held liable
Plaintiff’s husband, a fireman in the defendant’s railways, was killed by
defence of common employment was available to the defendant and the
plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.
Plaintiff was sunbathing when she was run over by the defendant’s car,
causing her injuries. Although the defendant was liable for negligently
driving, he wasn’t liable for trespass as there was no intention behind the
act.
Police officer unlawfully obstructed the plaintiff from entering the premises of a
club. It was held that since there was no application of force, police officer could
not be held liable for battery.
Powell, being a member of a shooting party, fired at a pheasant but the bullet
ricocheted off of a tree and hit the plaintiff, Stanley. As far as the tort of battery
is concerned, Powell was not held liable as the harm was unintentional.
Plaintiff entered a carriage on the defendant’s railway but failed to purchase a
ticket. At an intermediate station he asked for a ticket but was refused. At a
following station he was asked to get off of the train which he refused to do,
following which he was forcibly removed. Since the use of force here was
lawfully justified, the defendants were not liable.
Fixing a naked and live electric wire to keep persons from using a latrine is
excessive force and thus not lawfully justified
Chaining to the window a prisoner who is a patient at a hospital for the duration
of his treatment is excessive force and hence not lawfully justified.
Plaintiff was an agriculturist who owed land revenue. Village munsiff arrived to

Assault & Battery
False imprisonment
Knowledge of plaintiff (false
imprisonment)
Unlawful detention (false
movable property in place of the owed amount and since nothing else was
available, the agriculturist’s earrings were considered to be adequate. The village
goldsmith was called, but upon his arrival the amount due was paid off by a third
party. The defendant left after receiving payment. The plaintiff however alleged
that assault had been committed against him. Since the apprehension of the
plaintiff was not reasonable, defendant was not held liable.
Stephens v. Myers Plaintiff was chairman at a meeting and the defendant was seated at the same
table but with 6-7 persons seated between the plaintiff and him. Due to improper
conduct of the defendant, majority decided to expel him from the meeting,
following which, he proceeded towards the chairman with a clenched fist but
was stopped. He was held liable for assault.
Hurst v. Picture Theatres Purchaser of a ticker for a seat at a theatre has the right to stay and witness
Ltd. the whole performance and when he was forcibly
Bird v. Jones A part of a public footway was wrongfully closed by the defendant. Seats were
placed in the enclosure and entry was allowed only after payment. Plaintiff
asserted his right to use the footway and scaled the enclosure’s fence but was
prevented from going forward for half an hour. Since there was no total restraint
but only partial, defendant was not held liable for false imprisonment.
Mee v. Cruikshank After acquittal a prisoner was held in a cell for questioning by the warders. They
were held liable for false imprisonment.
Herring v. Boyle It was held that knowledge is essential.
Schoolmaster wrongfully refused to permit a school boy with his mother unless
the mother paid an amount alleged to be due from the boy. It was held that the
refusal to the mother in the absence of the boy would not amount to false
imprisonment as the boy did not have knowledge.
Meering v. Grahame-white Held that the knowledge is not essential.
Aviation Co. Plaintiff, an employee of the defendant company was suspected of having stolen
the company’s property. He was called to an office and was asked to stay in the
waiting room. He was told that his presence was required for investigational
purposes. He was made to stay there till the police arrived. After investigation he
was acquitted of all charges and he proceeded to sue for false imprisonment.
Defendants were held liable for false imprisonment.
Rudul Shah v. State of Defendant was unlawfully detained for 14 years and plea of state that the
imprisonment)
Lawful detention (false
imprisonment)
VNFI (Lawful detention)
(false imprisonment)
Detention by private person
(lawful detention) (false
imprisonment)
Libel
Bihar
Bhim Singh v. State of J. &
K.
Garikipati v. Araza
Biksham
Kundal Lal v. Dr. Des Raj
Robinson v. Balmain New
Ferry Co. Ltd.
Herd v. Weardale, Steel,
Coal and Coke Co. Ltd.
John Lewis & Co. v. Tims
Youssoupoff v. M.G.M.
Pictures Ltd.
detention had been for treatment of the prisoner was rejected.
(facts given above)
Defendant made a false report that plaintiffs set fire to defendant’s property.
Plaintiffs were arrested but were acquitted after investigation. The actions of the
defendant led to the unlawful detention of the plaintiffs which is why defendant
was held liable for false imprisonment.
Surety applied for the cancellation of a bail bond. Superintendent of Police
cancelled the bond and ordered the rearrest of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was
arrested. Later, it was held that the power to cancel a bail bond and order a
rearrest could be exercised only by a magistrate, making the rearrest and the
following detention unlawful. Superintendent and Sub-Inspector who arrested
were held liable for false imprisonment.
Plaintiff entered the wharf with the intention of crossing the river in the
defendant’s ferry. After not finding a free ferry, he attempted to exit but for that
he had to pay an extra penny, as displayed by the defendant. Defendants did not
let the plaintiff leave till payment was made. Defendant was not held liable for
false imprisonment.
Plaintiff, a workman for the defendant’s business, descended a mine with the
help of a cage elevator. His shift was 9:30 am to 4:00 pm. At 11:00 am, due to
some conflict between workers and foreman, they demanded to ascend the shaft
and leave. They were let go only at 1:30 pm, following which the plaintiff sued
for false imprisonment. Since there was VNFI and the plaintiff knew that the
workmen are allowed to ascend only at 4:00 pm and their demand for earlier exit
was unreasonable, defendant was not held liable for false imprisonment
Plaintiff and daughter went to a shop, where the daughter committed theft and
put four calendars into her mother’s bag. Both plaintiff and daughter were
detained and handed over to police, following which daughter was found guilty
and plaintiff was not. She sued for false imprisonment, and the defendants were
not held liable.
DEFAMATION
In a motion picture produced by the defendants, a lady, Princess Natasha was
shown as having relations of seduction with the man Rasputin, a man of the

Joint Action
Slander/Libel
Distinction between libel and
slander
Imputation of unchastity to a
woman (slander)
Defamatory statement
(essentials of defamation)
worst possible character.
Tushar Kanti Ghose v. Appeal arises out of a suit for damages brought by two plaintiffs against
Bina Bhowmick three defendants for the publication of libelous content in a newspaper.
First thing that came up was that the plaintiffs could not represent the
interests of their union as union cannot be represented, union has to file a
case as a union. This resulted in one of the plaintiffs’ claims being dismissed
and Ms. Bhowmick was allowed to continue the case on her own capacity, as
an individual, not as a representative of the union.
The defendant attempted to take the defence of qualified privilege, but it
was held that since before the publication of the libelous article the
newspaper had been publishing strongly biased articles against the plaintiff,
the libelous content was published out of malice, hence making the defence
of qualified privilege not available to the defendant. Defendant’s plea that
the content was ‘fair comment’ also got dismissed due to malice.
Professor Imtiaz Ahmad Defendant filed case against plaintiff for dowry demand and ‘Ansari’ was
v. Durdana Zamir added to his name in the complaint, which lowers his reputation as ‘Ansari’
is a lower caste, in addition to the lowering of reputation due to dowry
allegations. Suit was dismissed and defendant was not held liable.
Parvathi v. Mannar Held that the English law system of distinguishing libel and slander should not
be adopted in Indian courts.
Hirabai v. Dinshaw Edulji Held that imputation of adultery to a woman by spoken words is actionable,
without proof of damage.
A.C. Narayana Sah v.
Kannamma Bai
Bhoomi Money Dossee v. Held the opposite and said the English law system of differentiating between
Natobar Biswas libel and slander should be followed.
D.P. Choudhary v. Plaintiff, 17 years of age, belonged to a distinguished educated family of
Manjulata Jodhpur. A local daily printed a story that she had run away with a boy named
Kamlesh. The news item was untrue and was defamatory and the paper was held
liable.
Ram Jethmalani v. Defendant alleged that the CM of Tamil Nadu had prior knowledge of the
Subramaniam Swamy assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. CM engaged the plaintiff to represent him in
court. During court proceedings, defendant alleged that plaintiff was receiving
 money from LTTE, a banned organization. The allegation was found to be
defamatory in nature and the defendant was held liable.
S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Illustrated Weekly of India made allegations of misuse of power by CM of
Kumar Mohanta Assam, the plaintiff.
It was held that even if the statement does not damage the reputation of the
plaintiff in front of everyone in the community but just in the eyes of a
substantial, respectable group, even if they are a minority, it is still defamatory.
D.P. Choudhary v. (given above)
Manjulata
Ramdhara v. Phulwatibai Defendant alleged that the plaintiff has a relationship with her daughter-in-law’s
uncle. He was held liable for defamation.
South Indian Railway Co. Railway guard alleged that a passenger was travelling with a false ticket, in front
v. Ramakrishna of a fellow passenger. After the passenger produced an authentic ticket, he sued
the railway company for defamation. It was held that the words spoken by the
guard were bona fide and he was not held liable.
Innuendo Capital and Counties Bank Dispute between the defendants and one of the employees of the plaintiffs.
(defamatory statement) v. Henty & Sons Defendants used to accept payment in cheques drawn on various branches of the
plaintiff bank. Defendants issued a circular stating that they shall not receive
such cheques any more, drawn on the plaintiff’s bank. Other customers of the
bank came to know of the circular and withdrew accounts. Bank sued for
defamation as the customers believed the bank had gone bankrupt. However, it
was held that reasonable people would not understand the notice in the
defamatory innuendo sense. Therefore, defendants were not liable.
Tolley v. J.S. Fry & Sons The plaintiff, an amateur golf champion, was featured in the defendants’
Ltd. chocolate product ad without his knowledge. The innuendo in this case was that
the plaintiff had prostituted his status for the benefits that are present from
featuring in advertisements. Defendants were held liable for defamation.
Intention is not necessary Cassidy v. Daily Mirror (facts given above)
(innuendo) (defamatory Newspaper Ltd.
statement)
Morrison v. Rithie & Co. Defendants, in good faith, published a defamatory statement that the plaintiff
had given birth to twins, while the plaintiff had been married only two months
back. Defendants were held liable for defamation.

Intention is necessary in India
Statement must refer to
plaintiff
Defamation of a class of
persons (statement must refer
to plaintiff)
Defamation of a partnership
firm (defamation of a class of
persosn) (statement must refer
to plaintiff)
Statement must be published
Newstead v. London Defendants published a statement saying that Harold Newstead of Camberwell
Express Newspapers Ltd. had been convicted of bigamy. Story was true for Harold Newstead, a barmen in
Camberwell. However, a barber of the same name also residing in Camberwell
sued for defamation. Defendants were held liable.
T.V. Ramasubha Iyer v. Defendants published a statement that a person had smuggled opium into Ceylon
A.M.A. Mohindeen in the form of agarbathis. Plaintiff, who had a business of manufacturing scented
agarbathis and exporting them to Ceylon, sued for defamation. Defendants
pleased that they had not intended to defame the plaintiff. This was a landmark
case as it established that intention is necessary in India.
Hulton Co. v. Jones Defendants published a fictional article describing a motor festival. Article was
tarnished the reputation of a character named ‘Artemus Jones’. Plaintiff, a
barrister named Artemus Jones sued for defamation. Defendants plead that they
did not know the man and that they had referred to a fictional character in their
article. Nevertheless, they were held liable for defamation.
Knupffer v. London Plaintiff was a member of a party, with 2000 members, out of which 24 were in
Express Newspapers Ltd. England, including the plaintiff. Respondents published a statement of the party
as a whole. Appellant’s friends felt that the article referred to him, and he sued
for defamation. It was held that since the article referred to such a big party, it
could not be reasonably considered that it referred to the plaintiff and the
defendants were not held liable.
Dhirendra Nath Sen v. Rajat Held that when an editorial in a newspaper is defamatory of a spiritual head of a
Kanti Bhadra community, an individual of that community does not have a right of action.
Fanu v. Malcolmson In an article published by the defendants, it was mentioned that cruelty was
practiced in Irish factories, specially mentioning the ones in Waterford. The
plaintiff, owner of one such factory, sued for defamation and succeeded in his
suit as it could be reasonably inferred from the article that it referred to the
plaintiff’s factory.
P.K. Oswal Hosiery Mill v. It was held that defamation of a partnership firm may amount to defamation of
Tilak Chand its partners, but the firm can’t bring a suit for defamation as it is not a separate
legal entity, and any one of the partners can bring an action for defamation.
Mahendra Ram v. Defendant sent a defamatory letter to plaintiff in Urdu. Plaintiff did not
Harnandan Prasad know Urdu and had the letter read out to him by a third person. Defendant

Injunction against publication
of defamatory statement
(statement must be published)
Communication between
husband and wife (statement
must be published)
Repetition of the defamatory
matter (statement must be
published)
Single Publication and
multiple publication
Indemnity from the supplier of Gurbachan Singh v. Babu
wrong information (statement Ram
must be published)
Justification/truth (defences)
was not held liable unless it could be proved that he knew that the plaintiff
did not know Urdu and would have a third person reading the letter to him.
Arumuga Mudaliar v. When 2 persons jointly write a defamatory letter addressed to the plaintiff then
Annamalai Mudaliar publication does not occur as both are tortfeasors. Also, if the letter is read out
by a third person in front of various other persons, defendants are not liable
unless the event was foreseeable.
Prameela Ravindran v. P. Marriage between the plaintiff and her deceased husband was disputed by the
Lakshmikutty Amma defendant, mother of the deceased. The defendant wrote letters to various third
persons regarding her view on the marital status of the plaintiff. She was
restrained from doing the same via an injunction issued by court.
T.J. Ponnen v. M.C. Defendant wrote a letter containing defamatory content about his father-in-law
Verghese to his wife. Wife showed the letter to her father who sued for defamation. It was
held that letters and exchanges between husband and wife are not admissible in
court and hence the defendant was not held liable. However, if the plaintiff can
make his case on evidence other than the letters exchanged between the husband
and wife, case will be allowed to go to trial.
Theaker v. Richardson Defendant wrote a letter containing defamatory matter regarding a woman, the
plaintiff, and sent it in such circumstances that the husband would read it. The
husband read it and the defendant was held liable.
Emmens v. Pottle Defendants sold copies of publication containing defamatory matter. They were
not held liable as they were not aware of the defamatory content in the
publication.
Khawar Butt v. Asif Nazir Khawar Butt said that the defendant published defamatory things about
Mir & Ors him on a pamphlet and on Facebook in 2008 while the suit was brought in
2010. Limitation period for libel is 1 year from the date of publication. Butt
argued that on Facebook, the statement is being continuously republished.
This argument was overruled and the defendant was not held liable.
If person supplied wrong information to the editor of the newspaper, it is the
editor’s duty to check the authenticity of the information and ensure it is not
defamatory before publishing it in their publication. Editor cannot claim
indemnity from the supplier of the information unless there is a contract to that
effect.
Alexander v. North Eastern Plaintiff was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment or £1 fine. Defendants

Comment must be fair(Fair
Comment) (defences)
Judicial proceedings privilege Jiwan Mal v. Lachhman
(absolute privilege) (privilege) Das
(defences)
Publication of Parliamentary
Proceedings (Statement should
be made on privileged
occasion) (qualified privilege)
(privilege) (defences)
Statement should be made
without malice (qualified
privilege) (privilege)
(defences)
Ry. published notice that plaintiff had been sentenced to a fine of £1 or a
imprisonment of 3 weeks. Defendants were not held liable as notice was
substantially accurate.
Radheshyam Tiwari v. Defendant published a series of articles against the plaintiff alleging that he
Eknath accepted bribes and adopted corrupt and illegal practices. Since defendant could
not prove truth of the allegations, he was held liable.
Salenadandasi v. Gajjala Plaintiff, an advocate, was involved in the offence of raping a Harijan woman.
Malla Reddy Defendant publication published a story with deviating facts and comments
against the plaintiff’s ability to continue his practice as a legal professional.
Defendants were held liable.
Gregory v. Duke of Plaintiff, an actor, appeared onstage but was not allowed to perform due to the
Brunswick hissing and hooting at the plaintiff and caused him to lose his job. The hissing
and hooting were held actionable as they were not a fair comment.
While in the witness stand, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had looted a
whole city and was involved in malicious prosecution against several people.
However, the plaintiff was not related to the court proceedings and the defendant
was held liable and not given the defence of absolute privilege.
V. Narayana v. E. Subbanna Statements made in a complaint to the police are absolutely privileged and
hence, the defendant could not be made liable for defamation after filing a false
complaint against the plaintiff.
Cook v. Alexander Daily Telegraph gave a fair report of parliamentary proceedings with extracts
from 11 speeches. On the back of the newspaper, there was one further column
on the debate in the form of ‘Parliamentary Sketch’, to be of special public
interest. Prominence was given to a speech made by Mr. Cook which was why
Mr. Cook filed a suit for defamation. Defendant was not held liable as the
statement was given qualified privilege. It was given qualified privilege as it was
a fair representation of the impression the speech had on its audience. The sketch
also gave reference to the full parliamentary report, and the full report with the
sketch are protected by qualified privilege.
Clark v. Malyneux Held that if the person making the statement uses the occasion to gratify his own
personal anger or contempt, basically, out of malice, then the defence of
qualified privilege will not be available to him
 Horrocks v. Lawe Held that even if the defendant has unfavorable feelings towards the plaintiff, if
he believed in the truth of the statement made by him on the privileged occasion,
that entitles him to the defence of qualified privilege.
Defamation and Freedom of Salenadandasi v. Gajjala (facts given above)
Press Malla Reddy
Validity of criminal Subramaniam Swamy v. SC dismissed challenge to the constitutionality of the criminal offence of
defamation Union of India defamation, holding that it is a reasonable restriction on the right to
freedom of expression
NUISANCE
Public Nuisance (Kinds of Soltau v. De Held The plaintiff resided in a house next to a Roman Catholic Chapel of which
Nuisance) the defendant was the priest. The Chapel’s bell was rung at all hours of the
day and night. It was held that the ringing was a public nuisance and the
plaintiff was held to be entitled to an injunction against the defendant.
Attorney General v. P.Y.A Neighboring households were disturbed by the vibrations and dust that
Quarries originated at a nearby quarry. Attorney General held that the nuisance was
sufficiently widespread to amount to public nuisance and injunction was
passed against the quarry, restraining them from further activity.
Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Defendant created a brick grinding machine adjoining the premises of the
Babulal plaintiff, a medical professional. The dust generated by the machine entered the
premises of the plaintiff and caused physical discomfort to him and his patients.
Special damage to plaintiff was proved and injunction was issued against the
defendant from operating his machine.
Rose v. Milles Defendant wrongfully moored his barge across a public navigable creek,
blocking the way for plaintiff’s barges and the plaintiff had to incur considerable
expenditure in unloading the cargo and transporting via land. Special damage to
plaintiff was held and defendant was held liable.
Campbell v. Paddington Plaintiff was the owner of a building in London. Funeral procession of King
Corporation Edward VII was to pass from a highway in front of the building. Due to the view
available of the procession from her room, she accepted payments for letting
certain persons occupy seats on the floors of her building. However, a stand was
constructed for the defendants and their guests, which blocked the view from the
plaintiff’s building, depriving her of the profits she could have earned. It was
held that special damage had been caused to the plaintiff and the defendants

Private Nuisance
Unreasonable interference
(private nuisance)(kinds of
nuisance)
Sensitive plaintiff
(unreasonable interference)
(private nuisance) (kinds of
nuisance)
were held liable.
Winterbottom v. Lord Defendant’s agent blocked a public footway. Plaintiff brought an action alleging
Derby that he incurred extra costs to avoid the obstruction. Since no special damage
had been caused to the plaintiff, as other members of the public were facing the
same problems, defendant was not held liable for private nuisance.
Balwant Singh v. Appellant lived in a colony opposite to Vidyut Bhawan and near to Vidhan
Commissioner of Police Sabha. He filed an appeal against the disturbance caused because of people
there, and was successful in his suit.
Radhey Shyam v. Gur Plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction against defendants from operating their flour
Prasad mill within their premises. The flour mill was causing nuisance to the plaintiffs,
who were residents of the first floor of the same premises. Mental peace of
plaintiffs was disturbed from all the rattling noise emitted by the mill. It was
held that interference here was unreasonable and the plaintiff’s suit succeeded.
Shanmughavel Chettiar v. Plaintiff firm constructed a building for the purposes of ginning factory, after
Sri Ramkumar Ginning obtaining license from the Panchayat. Plaintiff invested large funds to make an
Firm operational factory. Defendants were granted license to operate a brick kiln on
the adjacent land. Plaintiff filed for injunction against the brick kiln on the
grounds that the fumes from the proposed brick kiln would spoil the quality of
cotton in the ginning factory. Also, sparks from the brick kiln could cause fire in
the factory due to all the cotton present there. It was held that the brick kiln, if
erected, would be a special nuisance for the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff had a
right to resist the erection of the brick kiln.
Ushaben v. Bhagya Laxmi Plaintiffs sued the defendants for a permanent injunction against the screening of
Chitra Mandir the film ‘Jai Santoshi Maa’. Plaintiffs contended that the film caused hurt to
their religious feelings as goddesses were defined as jealous and ridiculed. It was
held that hurt to religious feelings was not an actionable wrong, thus defendants
were free to screen the movie.
Robinson v. Kilvert A man practicing a delicate trade will not be allowed to increase his
neighbors’ liability. Plaintiff warehoused brown paper in a building. Heat
created by the defendant on the lower floor due to the carrying on of his
own business led to the drying up of the paper which diminished its value.
Damage had occurred due to the exceptionally delicate trade of the plaintiff
and normal paper would not have been damaged by the defendant’s

Nuisance is a continuing
wrong (unreasonable
interference) (private
nuisance) (kinds of nuisance)
Malice (unreasonable
interference) (private
nuisance) (kinds of nuisance)
business, thus making the defendant not liable.
Health v. Mayor of Court refused to grant injunction against the functioning of defendant’s power-
Brighton station as the ‘buzzing noise’ irritating the plaintiffs was not causing discomfort
to any other person and was not of the form that any ordinary persons would be
annoyed.
Stone v. Bolton Plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball, that was hit from a distance, while standing on
a highway. Her suit for nuisance succeeded as the act, although isolated,
involved the escape of a dangerous object.
Dollman v. Hillman Ltd. Plaintiff slipped on a piece of fat lying on a pavement outside the defendant’s
butcher’s shop. Defendant was held liable for nuisance even though the injury
was an isolated event.
Mayor of Bradford Corp. v. It was held that if an act is otherwise lawful, it does not become unlawful merely
Pickles because it was committed with an evil motive.
Allen v. Flood It was held that no proprietor has an absolute right to create noises on his own
land, because his right is constricted by the condition that while exercising it, he
should not cause nuisance to his neighbors or the public.
Christie v. Davey Defendant, after being annoyed by the amount of music lessons in the plaintiff’s
premises, maliciously caused discomfort to plaintiff by hammering on the wall
shared by both of them, beating of trays, whistling and shrieking. It was held that
the noise created by plaintiff was not nuisance as it was not excessive or
unreasonable, and that the defendant was sensitive. Also, the defendant’s actions
caused excessive and unreasonable discomfort to plaintiff, making him liable for
the tort of nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm The plaintiff’s farm had the business of breeding silver foxes. The vixen of the
Ltd. v. Emmett species, during breeding season, can be disturbed by any loud noise which might
cause them to not breed, miscarry and/or kill their own offspring. Defendant
maliciously fired guns on his own land as close as possible to the breeding pens
with a view to cause damage to the plaintiff by interfering with the breeding.
Court held that plaintiff’s suit for injunction and damages for the harm suffered
due to the nuisance caused by the defendant was justified and the defendant was
held liable.
Injury to property St. Helen’s Smelting Co. v. Fumes from the defendant company’s operations damaged the plaintiff’s trees
(Interference with the Tipping and shrubs. Since damage was caused to property, defendants were held liable
use/enjoyment of land) for the tort of nuisance.
(private nuisance)(kinds of
nuisance)
Interference with the right of Stroyan v. Knowles Damage was caused to plaintiff’s factory due to withdrawal of support from land
support of land and buildings on which the factory had been constructed. It was held that since the loss of
(nuisance to incorporeal building was consequential to the withdrawal of support from land due to
property)(injury to property) defendant’s mining operations, defendant shall be held liable for nuisance.
(Interference with the
use/enjoyment of land)
(private nuisance) (kinds of
nuisance)
Right to support by grant or Dalton v. Angus Plaintiff and defendant had houses that were laterally supported by each other’s
prescription (Interference with lands. Plaintiff converted his house into a factory, making it require more lateral
the right of support of land support. After a period of 20 years, defendant demolished his house, causing loss
and buildings)(nuisance to of support to the plaintiff’s factory. Plaintiff sued for damages as his right for
incorporeal property)(injury to support of building had been acquired due to the lapse of 20 years since the
property)(Interference with the construction of the factory. Plaintiff succeeded in his claim.
use/enjoyment of land)(private
nuisance)(kinds of nuisance)
Right to Air Webb v. Bird Construction of a building by the defendants caused blockage of passage of air
(England)(Interference with to the plaintiff’s windmill. Since plaintiff had not acquired the right to air via
right to light and air) grant or prescription, defendants were not held liable.
(nuisance to incorporeal
property)(injury to property)
(Interference with the
use/enjoyment of land)
(private nuisance) (kinds of
nuisance)
Bass v. Gregory Defendants blocked a shaft by which plaintiff’s house had been receiving
ventilation for forty years. The time lapse automatically granted the plaintiff the
right to air and the defendants were held liable.
India(Interference with right to Polsue and Alfiery Ltd. v.
light and air) (nuisance to
incorporeal property)(injury to
property) (Interference with
the use/enjoyment of land)
(private nuisance) (kinds of
nuisance)
Damage (private
nuisance)(kinds of nuisance)
Nuisance on highways
(damage)(private
nuisance)(kinds of nuisance)
Projections (damage)(private
nuisance)(kinds of nuisance)
Plaintiff, who was living in a noisy locality, sued to prevent the defendant
Rushmere company from installing printing machinery next door which caused the plaintiff
and his family to stay awake at night. Since this was a serious addition to the
already noisy locality, court granted injunction against the defendants.
Fay v. Prentice Cornice of defendant’s house projected over plaintiff’s garden. It was presumed
that rain water shall fall into the garden and damage it as a result of the
projection, hence, defendant was held liable for nuisance.
Barber v. Penley Due to considerable queues outside the defendant’s theatre, access to the
plaintiff’s boarding house was extremely difficult at times. The obstruction was
held to be a nuisance and the management of the theatre was held liable.
Dwyer v. Mansfield During acute scarcity of potatoes, long queues were formed outside the
defendant’s shop and due to limited rations, the queue extended a lot, blocking
access to a number of neighboring shops. Defendant was not held liable as the
circumstances were such that caused the blockage of access. The defendant was
merely conducting his business normally.
Ware v. Garston Haulage Defendant left his lorry attached with a trailer on the side of a highway. Trailer
Co. Ltd. had no tail lamps and the plaintiff, riding his motorbike collided with the trailer.
Plaintiff sued defendant for nuisance and defendant was held liable as his actions
had caused a dangerous obstruction on a highway.
Leanse v. Egerton Window panes of defendant’s building were broken due to an air raid on Friday.
Plaintiff was injured by falling glass on the next Tuesday by which time no
repairs had been carried out on the window panes as the owner was himself
unaware of the damage caused to the building. Nevertheless, he was held liable
for causing nuisance.
Noble v. Harrison Branch of a beach tree growing on the defendant’s land hung over the highway
at a height of 30 feet. In fine weather, the branch of the tree suddenly broke and
fell and damaged the plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff sued the defendant for
nuisance. Defendant was not held liable because the breaking of the branch and
subsequent damage caused by it was unforeseeable.
Caminer v. Northern & Tree growing on defendant’s land fell on the adjoining highway and caused

Prescriptive right to commit
nuisance (effectual
defences)(defences)
Public good (ineffectual
defences)(defences)
Reasonable care (ineffectual
defences)(defences)
Plaintiff coming to nuisance
(ineffectual defences)
(defences)
Contributory Negligence
London Investment Trust damage to the plaintiff’s car. Reason for the fall of the tree was a disease in the
Ltd. roots of the tree. There were no symptoms of the disease, thus making it
impossible for the defendant to foresee the falling of the tree and the damage
caused by it. Hence, defendant was not held liable.
Tarry v. Ashton (facts given above)
Sturges v. Bridgman Defendant, a confectioner, had a kitchen in the rear of his house. For over 20
years, confectionery materials were pounded in the kitchen with large pestles
and mortars, causing noise and vibrations. The same were not complained about
by the plaintiff, a physician living in the adjacent house. The physician made a
consulting room in his garden and felt inconvenienced by the noise for the first
time as they interfered with his practice. He sued the defendant for nuisance and
succeeded because the defence of prescriptive right was not made available as
the plaintiff had not felt nuisance for the period of 20 years. Nuisance had begun
after construction of the consulting room in the garden.
Shelfer v. City of London During the construction of an electric powerhouse by the defendants, there were
Electric Lighting Co. violent vibrations that caused damage in the plaintiff’s house. In an act for
injunction against the plaintiff, the defendants pleaded that the city of London
shall suffer if the construction is not completed. Plea was rejected and injunction
was issued.
Adams v. Ursell An injunction was issued against a fried fish shop and plea was rejected that
injunction would result in great hardship caused to the defendant and his ‘poor’
customers.
R v. Train Action for public nuisance caused by laying dangerous tram lines in the street, it
was held to be no defence that the running of trams would be convenient to the
general public
Rapier v. London Considerable stench was emanating from the defendants’ stables constructed to
Tramways Co. accommodate 200 horses. Defence that maximum possible care was taken to
minimize the stench was not available.
Bills v. Hall An action for nuisance against the defendant’s business for causing discomfort
by noxious vapor and fumes was not defendable against by stating that the
business had been operating for 3 years before the plaintiff came to that place.
CONTRIBUTORY & COMPOSITE NEGLIGENCE
Municipal Board, Jaunpur Plaintiff was travelling by cycle without a headlight on a dark road. In the
 v. Brahm Kishore darkness, he fell into a ditch dug by the defendant who had not provided any
light or put up a danger sign to warn others about the same. It was held that the
accident would have happened even if the cycle had a head lamp, therefore there
was no contributory negligence on the plaintiff’s part.
Sushma Mitra v. M.P. A passenger was resting his elbow on the window sill of a passenger bus
State Road Transport when he suddenly got injured by another bus coming from the opposite
Corporation direction. He was not held guilty of contributory negligence as it is a fairly
common habit.
Agya Kaur v. Pepsu Road An overloaded rickshaw was being driven on the road, and was hit by a bus
Transport Corporation coming from the wrong side at a high speed. Bus did not stop even after the
accident. It was held that even though the rickshaw was overloaded, it did not
contribute to the negligence shown by the bus driver.
Butterfield v. Forester Defendant wrongfully obstructed a highway by putting a pole across it. Plaintiff
was driving rashly on the road and collided with the pole and was thrown from
his horse. If the plaintiff had shown due care accident could have been avoided.
Plaintiff’s action for negligence was dismissed
The Last Opportunity Rule Davies v. Mann Plaintiff fettered the forefeet of his donkey and left it on a narrow highway. The
(Contributory Negligence) defendant, negligently driving his wagon, ran over the donkey and killed it.
Despite his own negligence, the plaintiff was entitled to claim damages as the
defendant had the ‘last opportunity’ to avoid the accident.
Radley v. L. & N. W. R. Plaintiffs were colliery proprietors and also owned a bridge near the siding from
Ry. under which trucks loaded with coal used to be taken by the defendants. One day
one of the trucks was loaded so high by the plaintiffs that the same was
obstructed by the bridge. Without noticing the obstruction, defendants’ driver
proceeded to attempt to drive under the bridge. In the process, the bridge was
knocked down. In spite of contributory negligence by the plaintiffs, they were
entitled to claim damages for the bridge as the defendants had the ‘last
opportunity’
British Columbia Electric Driver of a wagon with a passenger negligently brought the wagon on the level
Co. v. Loach crossing of the defendant’s tramline without stopping and looking for incoming
trams. A tram that was being driven negligently fast caused the collision. The
tram had defective brakes as well. Defence of contributory negligence was not
made available to them as they had the ‘last opportunity’ to stop the accident
Doctrine of apportionment of
damages in India
Rule 1 (rules to determine
contributory
Rural Transport Service v. Conductor of an overloaded bus invited passengers to travel on the roof. Driver
Bezlum Bibi swerved the bus to overtake a cart. Due to this, plaintiff’s son was hit by a tree’s
branch and consequently died. Plaintiff brought a suit against the driver and
conductor for negligence. Defendants were held liable but plaintiff’s son was
held liable for contributory negligence as he took a risk by travelling on the roof
and compensation was reduced by 50%.
Subhakar v. Mysore State Court reduced the compensation payable to the extent the plaintiff was himself
Road Transport Corporation at fault. Plaintiff was going on a cycle and suddenly changed lanes. He was hit
by the defendant’s bus resulting in injuries to him. It was held that both parties
equally contributed to the accident with their negligence and compensation was
reduced by 50%.
Vidya Devi v. M.P. Road Motorbike rider collided with bus and died. Driver of the bus was also
Transport Corpn. found to be negligent. Negligence that was contributed by the deceased and
the driver was held to be 1/3rd and 2/3rd. Meaning, compensation to plaintiff
was 1/3rd of the claim made by her.
Maya Mukherjee v. The Motorcyclist died after an accident with the defendant’s car. The ratio of
Orissa Cooperative responsibility was fixed as 60% for the motorcyclist and 40% for the car driver,
Insurance Society Ltd. meaning plaintiff was given 40% of the claim made by her.
Rehana v. Ahmedabad Plaintiff, a cyclist, was hit by the defendants but was found to be at fault to the
Municipal Transport extent of 25% and compensation was reduced to 75% of the original claim by
Service the plaintiff.
Satbir Singh v. Balwant Accident between a motor cycle and a truck coming from the opposite direction
Singh which resulted in death of pillion rider and injuries to the driver. Negligence of
the truck driver was fixed at 1/3rd, cutting the compensation to 1/3rd of the
original claim.
Oriental F. & G. Ins. Co. v. A scooterist, because of his sole negligence, crashed head-on into a car and died.
Manjit Kaur Since 100% negligence was on the plaintiff’s part, family’s claim for
compensation was dismissed
Municipal Corporation of It was held that in the calculation of extent of negligence of parties, ages of
Greater Bombay v. Shri plaintiff and defendant would be a relevant factor
Laxman Iyer
Bhagwat Swarup v. Defendant company’s deliveryman delivered gas cylinder replacement to the
Himalaya Gas Co. plaintiff’s house. Cap of the cylinder was defective. Deliveryman obtained an
negligence)(contributory axe from the plaintiff for opening the cylinder. After hitting the cap, gas leaked
negligence) and caused fire and caused death and injury to the plaintiff and his family. It was
held that the deliveryman was solely responsible and the fact that he had
obtained the axe from the plaintiff doesn’t make the plaintiff liable for
contributory negligence because the plaintiff was a layman while the
deliveryman was a trained person.
Rule 2 (rules to determine Agya Kaur v. Pepsu Road (facts given above)
contributory Transport Corporation
negligence)(contributory
negligence)
National Insurance Co. v. Accident occurred between motor cycle with 4 people on it and a truck.
Kastoori Devi Motorcyclist was not held liable for contributory negligence as the overloading
of the motorcycle did not contribute in any way to the accident and its
consequences.
M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. v. Abdul Accident of a motor cyclist, carrying an adult and a child on the pillion seat, with
Rahman a bus, which resulted in the death of all three. It was held that the overloading of
the motorcycle had no contribution to the accident and its consequences, making
the defendant solely responsible.
Doctrine of Alternative Jones v. Boyce The plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant’s coach and the coach was driven
Danger (contributory so negligently that the plaintiff was alarmed. Attempting to save himself from
negligence) the danger created by rash driving of the coach, he jumped off the coach and
sustained injuries. It was held that the plaintiff’s actions were reasonable and he
was entitled to damages.
Shyam Sunder v. State of Due to the negligence of the defendants, their truck caught fire. One of the
Rajasthan occupants jumped out to save himself but struck a stone lying on the side of the
road which caused his death.
Sayers v. Harlow Urban Plaintiff, having paid for admission, entered a public toilet provided and
District Council maintained by the defendant. Door automatically locked, trapping the plaintiff
inside. She shouted to attract attention of people outside, to no avail. In an
attempt to escape by climbing out, she injured herself. Defendants were held
liable for the injuries caused.
Brandon v. Osborne, Gerret Plaintiff and her husband were in the defendant’s shop. Broken piece of glass
and Co. fell from the skylight. To avoid the same, the plaintiff pulled her husband away,

Presumption that others are
careful (contributory
negligence)
Contributory negligence of
children (contributory
negligence)
Doctrine of Identification
(contributory negligence)
Children in custody of adults
(doctrine of identification)
(contributory negligence)
and while doing so injured her leg. It was held that she is entitled to claim
damages as even though she wasn’t in danger, her act was instinctive and
reasonable.
Morgan v. Aylen Plaintiff was injured to while trying to save a child from being run over by a
lorry. She was entitled to damages.
Gee v. Metropolitan Ry.Co. Plaintiff, a passenger in the defendant’s railway, lightly leaned against the door
of a carriage. The door had been negligently left unfastened and the same flew
open which caused the plaintiff to fall off of the train. Plaintiff was entitled to
recover full compensation as he had reasonably presumed that the defendant
shall not be negligent.
R. Srinivasa v. K.M. Child of 6 years was hit by a lorry while standing near a footpath. It was held
Parasivamurthy that a child of that age does not have road sense and experience and therefore
can’t be held liable for contributory negligence.
Motias Costa v. Roque Plaintiff, a child of 6 years was knocked down by a motor cycle while crossing a
Augustinho Jacinto road to go to his school on the other side of the road. Defence of contributory
negligence was not given as the defendant should have been more careful as he
was driving in a school area and he was held liable wholly.
M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. v. Abdul (facts given above)
Rahman
Alka v. Union of India Defendants were negligent in leaving the door of a room containing an electric
pump open. Plaintiff, a trespassing child, put her hand in the pump, not knowing
the consequence. Due to this the child suffered injuries and the defendants were
held wholly liable.
Darshani Devi v. Sheo Collision between a truck trailer and taxi resulting in death and injury caused to
Ram taxi’s occupants. Proportion of negligence of drivers of the truck and the taxi
was fixed at 90:10. However, for the occupants of the taxi, they were not held
liable for contributory negligence as the driver of the taxi was merely an
independent contractor.
Oliver v. Birmingham and Child of 4 years and his grandfather were crossing the road when the defendant’s
Midland Omnibus Co. omnibus came there suddenly. Startled by the omnibus, the grandfather jumped
off the road and left the child, who was struck by the omnibus and injured. The
child, however, was entitled to full compensation even though there was
contributory negligence on his grandfather’s part, who had custody of him.
Composite Negligence
Escape (essentials of strict
liability)(strict liability)
Non-natural use of the land
(essentials of strict
liability)(strict liability)
Act done by independent
contractor
Plaintiff the wrongdoer
(defences)(strict liability)
Act of God (defences)(strict
liability)
State of Punjab v. Phool Held that apportionment of liability between tortfeasors is allowed however, the
Kumari same was rejected by multiple high courts.
Karnataka State Road Two passenger buses brushed against each other in such a way that the left
Transport Corporation v. hands of two passengers were cut off below the shoulder. Both drivers were held
Krishnan liable for composite negligence.
Satbir Singh v. Balwant Widow of pillion rider was entitled to compensation for the composite
Singh negligence of the motorcyclist and the truck driver (facts given above)
RULES OF ABSOLUTE AND STRICT LIABILITY
Read v. Lyons & Co. Plaintiff was an employee in the defendant’s ammunition factory. While she was
working, a shell exploded and injury was caused to her. There was no negligence
on the part of the defendants. Even though the shell exploded and it qualifies as
a ‘dangerous thing’, it did not escape the defendant’s property, thus making the
rule of strict liability inapplicable.
Sochacki v. Sas It was held that a fire in a house inside a grate is an ordinary, proper, natural,
everyday use of a fire place in a house. If the fire spreads from this source to
other premises then rule of strict liability doesn’t apply.
Noble v. Harrison (facts given above)
T.C. Balakrishnan Menon Explosive made out of a coconut shell, instead of shooting into the sky and
v. T.R. Subramaniam exploding there, it followed a tangent, and fell amidst a crowd and exploded,
causing serious injury. Although the exhibition of fireworks was under the
charge of an independent contractor, the employer was still held liable.
Ponting v. Noakes Plaintiff’s horse intruded into defendant’s land and died after nibbling the leaves
of a poisonous tree there. Defendant was not held liable as the damage occurred
but for the horse’s own intrusion. Rule of strict liability also didn’t apply
because there was no escape.
Eastern and South African Plaintiff’s submarine cable transmissions were disturbed by escape of electric
Telegraph Co. Ltd. v. current from the defendant’s tramways. It was held that damage was due to
Capetown Tramways Co. unusual sensitiveness of the plaintiff’s apparatus hence, defendant was not held
liable.
Nichols v. Marsland (facts given above)
S.K. Shangrung Lamkang Management of supply of electricity was a hazardous and inherently dangerous
v. State of Manipur activity, when harm is caused due to such activity, defendants, who were

VNFI (defences)(strict
liability)
Act of 3rd Party
(defences)(strict liability)
Statutory Authority
(defences)(strict liability)
Position in India (strict
liability)
Absolute liability
responsible for the same, were held strictly liable.
The harm caused was that two persons died due electrocution by the falling of a
high tension wire from its pole. Defendants pleaded that the fall of the wire was
due to a storm and the same was unforeseeable. They were held liable anyway as
the fall of the wire was held to be foreseeable by court and steps could have been
taken to prevent the same.
Carstair v. Taylor Plaintiff hired ground floor of a building from the defendant. The upper floor
was occupied by defendant himself. Water stored on the upper floor leaked
without any negligence on the part of the defendant, and injured the plaintiff’s
goods on the ground floor. As the water had been stored for both the plaintiff’s
and the defendant’s benefit, defendant was not held liable as plaintiff’s consent
was implied.
Box v. Jabb Overflow from the defendant’s reservoir was caused by the blockage of a
drain by 3rd parties and the defendant was not held liable.
Richards v. Lothian 3rd parties blocked the waste pipes of a wash basin managed and controlled by
the defendants, and opened the tap. Overflow of water damaged plaintiff’s
goods. Defendants were not held liable.
Green v. Chelsea Defendant company had a statutory duty to maintain continuous supply of water.
Waterworks Co. A main belonging to the company burst, without any negligence on its part, and
consequentially plaintiff’s premises were flooded. The company was not held
liable due to the defence of statutory authority.
Madras Railway Co. v. Held by the court that due to the peculiarity of Indian conditions, the escape of
Zamindar water collected for agricultural purposes by the owner may not be subject to
strict liability. Owner is liable only if there is negligence on his part.
K Nagireddi vs Government (facts given above)
of Andhra Pradesh
Indian Council For Enviro- Environment pollution was caused in Bichhri village and other adjacent villages
Legal Action v. Union of due to the production of ‘H’ acid and discharges from the sulphuric acid plant of
India the defendants. Defendants were held absolutely liable according to the rule of
absolute liability and also according to the principle, ‘Polluter Pays’.
Klaus Mittelbachert v. East A German co-pilot was staying in New Delhi’s Hotel Oberoi Inter-Continental.
India Hotels Ltd. He was badly injured when he dived in the hotel swimming pool due to the
defective design of the pool and insufficient water in it. Injuries resulted in
paralysis and eventual death 13 years later. It was held that a 5 star hotel charges
very highly for the services provided by it and due to that it owes a high degree
of care to its guests, which means that a latent defect in its structure shall result
in absolute liability for it.