1) In Walker v. Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland, (1890) 28 L.R. Ir.

69
case, where the plaintiff’s pregnant mother travelled on the defendant’s railway.
There was an accident of the railway. Plaintiff’s claim was he had been born
crippled and deformed because the injury was caused to it by the accident due to
the railway’s negligence and hence he should be compensated by the defendant. The
Court held that the defendants are not liable to pay damages due to the following
two reasons:

The defendants did not owe any duty or care to the plaintiff as they did not know
about his existence; and
The medical evidence to prove the plaintiff’s claim was very uncertain.

2) the case of Montreal Tramways v.Leveille,4 decided by the Supreme Court of

Canada, was a child allowed to recover for prenatal injuries.
in the Leveille case, the child's mother was thrown from defendant's train due to
the negligent operation thereof. Two months later the mother gave birth to a child
with clubfeet. The court reasoned that if a
right of action be denied the child, the child would be compelled to go through
life "carrying the seal of another's fault, and bearing a very heavy burden of
infirmity and inconvenience, without any compensation therefor."5 In the opinion of
the court, it was only natural justice and not sentimentality to allow recovery in
such a case. The court could see no reason why a child should be considered to be
in
existence from conception in certain types of cases and not in cases where a denial
of recovery would impose an extreme burden on the child passing of the

Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act. The Act enables a child who is born
alive to sue any person who has caused him to be born disabled as a result of an
act of negligence. In England, there exists the Congenital Disabilities (Civil
Liability) Act, 1976 that absolves the mother from any liability for congenital
disabilities. However, there exists an exception to this rule according to which
the mother will be held liable for causing prenatal injuries to their unborn child
if the injury occurs due to negligent driving of the mother or motor vehicle
accident caused by the mother. However, in case of motor accidents also, the
liability of the mother is limited and cannot be extended beyond the confinements
of their insurance policies.

3) M nagten case- Defendant, M’Naghten was charged with the murder of Edward
Drummond, secretary to the Prime Minister and used the insanity defense at trial.
At the time of his arrest, he told police that he came to London to murder the
Prime Minister because he was told to do so. The jury reached a verdict of not
guilty and a meeting at the House of Lords ensued in order to determine what the
standards for the insanity defense would be.

4) Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for

India.
Background:A servant of a company was traveling with a carriage and horses owned by
the company. Government workers were doing work near the road, and a heavy piece of
iron they were carrying fell on the road. The carriage horses got scared and rushed
forward, getting hurt by the iron. The company sued to get compensation for the
damage caused to their horses.
Key Questions:**
1. Did the company's actions fall under the government's special powers?
2. Was the company responsible for the actions of its workers?
3. Was the government (Secretary of State) responsible for its workers'
carelessness?
Court's Decision:**
1. If something is done as part of the government's special powers, it can't be
challenged. But in this case, the company had both trading and government-like
functions, so they can be held responsible if their workers acted wrongfully during
trading activities.
2. The government workers were not using special powers here; it was a normal
situation that anyone could do. So, the company was responsible for their actions.
3. The government (Secretary of State) was also responsible for its workers'
actions because they were doing something that regular people could do.
Outcome:**
The court decided that the company couldn't claim special government immunity, and
they were responsible for their workers' actions. The government was also held
responsible for its workers' negligence.

5) Nagendra Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

N. Nagendra Rao, a person who had a business selling fertilizers and food grains,
faced trouble when the authorities raided his business place and took away his
goods. They were supposed to take care of the goods, but they didn't, and the goods
got damaged. Nagendra Rao wanted compensation for his losses.
He went to court, and the main questions were: Does the government have immunity
(protection) when they take goods as part of their official powers? Also, if they
take only a part of the goods, can they still avoid paying for any damage? Nagendra
Rao's side argued that the government's actions weren't part of their official
powers and that they didn't take care of his goods properly. So, they should pay
for the damage. The government said their actions were part of their official
powers, so they shouldn't be responsible.
In the end, the court found that when the government took Nagendra Rao's goods, a
relationship like "lender and borrower" was created. This meant the government had
a duty to take care of the goods. Since they didn't take care of the goods, they
were held responsible for the damage.
In simpler words, Nagendra Rao's goods were taken by the government, and they
didn't take care of them. The court decided that the government should pay for the
damage because they didn't do their duty properly. The government's argument that
they were acting under their official powers didn't work in this situation.

6) Buron v Denman- Buron's slavery decks were destroyed by Denman a british navy
officer working against the slavery. he was not help liable by the court ass he was
functioning within the sovereign powers.

7) Vidyawati v the state of rajasthan

Lokumal was a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan, as a motor driver on
probation. In February 1952, he was employed as the driver of a Government jeep
car, registered as No. RUM 49, under the Collector of Udaipur. The said car was
given for necessary repairs at a workshop. After the repairs were finished,
Lokumal, while driving the car back along a public road, in the evening of February
11, 1952, knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the said
of the public road in Udaipur city, causing him multiple injuries, including
fractures of the skull and backbone, resulting in his death three days later, in
the hospital where he had been removed for treatment.
The plaintiffs who are Jagdishlal’s widow, Vidyawati and a minor daughter, aged
three years, through her mother as next friend sued the said Lokumal and the State
of Rajasthan for damages for the tort aforesaid. They claimed the compensation of
Rs. 25,000/- from both the defendants.
The Court held that the liability of the State regarding the tortious act by its
servant within the scope of his employment and functioning was like that of any
other employer.

8) Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v State of UP case

UP Police constables took into custody Ralia Ram on suspicion of being in
possession of stolen property.
His property, including gold, silver and seers, was seized and kept in malkhana
(police custody) till the disposal of case. Soon, he was released on bail and they
returned only the seized silver to him. When police officers refused to return
seized gold, he filed the present suit against the respondent claiming that the
gold seized from him should either be returned to him, or its value should be
ordered to be paid to him along with interest by damages and future interest. They
contended they were not liable to return either the gold or pay the money value of
gold with interest. The respondent accused Mohammad Amir, who was then the head
constable and malkhana’s in-charge, that he flew away to Pakistan with the gold and
some other cash.
Case has been registered under S. 409 of Indian Penal Code and S. 29 of the Police
Act against Mohammad Amir, but nothing effective could be done despite the best
efforts made by the police department.
The defendant pleaded State could not be held guilty for negligence. The trial
Court found in favor of the plaintiff and ordered a decree to pay money value of
gold. On appeal by the defendants, HC withheld decision of trial Court and held the
defendant not guilty of negligently losing the plaintiff’s gold. The plaintiff
(appellant herein) challenged the correctness of this decree in this Court. SC held
the State was not liable as police officers did the act in the exercise of
sovereign powers. By holding the power to arrest a person, to search for him, and
to seize his property are powers conferred on the police officers by statute as
sovereign powers.

9) Rudal shah v The State of Bihar

The petitioner, Rudul Sah, was arrested for the murder of his wife. After serving
his sentence, he was acquitted by the Sessions Court in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, on June
3, 1968. However, on October 16, 1982, he was released from prison following a 14-
year sentence. The petitioner sought compensation for his wrongful detention by
filing a writ petition of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court under Article 32. He
also requested state-funded medical treatment and an ex-gratia payment for his
recovery.The Court granted the petition, ruling that the petitioner’s incarceration
in prison following his acquittal was completely unlawful. Article 32 gives the
Supreme Court the authority to issue directions or orders, as well as appropriate
writs, to enforce any of the rights provided by Part III of the
constitution.Furthermore, even if he was mentally ill at the time he was acquitted,
he could not be imprisoned for an extended period. The reason is straightforward.
Even a lunatic has legal rights during the trial process. The court found the
state’s action to be harsh and devoid of factual support. As a result, the court
determined that the petitioner’s detention was irrational.

10) Nilabati Beheraa v. The State of Orissa

In the instant case, a letter was sent by Smt. Nilabati Behera to the Supreme Court
stated that her twenty-two-year-old son, Suman Behera had died in police custody
after being inflicted with several injuries.The honorable court took suo moto
action and converted it into a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian
constitution.The petitioner claimed compensation for the violation of her son’s
fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21.The Orissa police had
arrested Suman Behara for investigation involving the offence of theft and he was
detained at the police outpost.The very next day, his dead body was found near the
railway track. The lacerations on his body indicated an unnatural death.The
admitted facts are, that Suman Behera was taken into police custody on 1.12.1987 at
8 a.m. and he was found dead the next day on the railway track near the Police
Outpost Jeraikela, without being released from custody, and his death was
unnaturally caused by multiple injuries sustained by him.The police also reached
out much later to take charge of the body, after it was reported by railwaymen,
which raised questions as to its credibility. Further, a doctor before the court
deposed that the injury was caused by a blunt object, which may have been lathi
blows. All the injuries found on his body could not have been caused by a train
accident. The court also drew the distinction between the liabilities of the State
in public law as opposed to private law.It clearly mentioned that a proceeding
under Article 32 before the Supreme Court or any High Court is a remedy available
in public law and the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply in the case of
public law. It is only a defense in private law based on tort. It also stressed
that it would be highly unjust to expect a person socio-economically disadvantaged
person to pursue ordinary civil proceedings under private law. And the Apex Court
held the Petitioner awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000 and a sum of Rs.10,000 to
be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee.The Supreme Court also ordered the
State of Orissa to initiate criminal proceedings against those who killed Suman
Behara. The decision of this case, therefore, made sure that the state could no
longer escape liability in Public law and had to be compelled to pay compensation
when it committed such gross violations of one’s fundamental rights and very basic
human rights.

11) Hall v Brooklands Auto racing club

On the day in question two competing cars in a long distance race on this track
were involved in a collision on the finishing straight, with one of the cars being
flung into the air and over the kerb and railing, hitting a group of spectators and
killing two of them. No such accident had occurred previously in the history of the
course, which had been running races for over 20 years. D was sued in negligence by
an injured spectator, who alleged that the premises had not been made adequately
safe for spectators, nor had adequate warning of the dangers been given.It was the
duty of the defendants to see that the track was as free from danger as reasonable
care and skill could make it, but they were under no duty to guard against risks
that were not reasonably foreseeable, or which were innate to the activity of which
C was a spectator. As no accident of this nature had previously occurred it could
not be said to be reasonably foreseeable, and D was not required to militate the
risk of an event that no amount of due diligence would have revealed.

12)Wooldridge v Sumner
The plaintiff, Mr Wooldridge, who was a photographer at a horse race, was injured
by the horse belonging to the defendant, Sumner, which was ridden in a competition
by Ron Holladay, who was a skilled and experienced horseman.The Court of Appeal
held that Sumner owed no duty of care to Wooldridge in this case. As a spectator,
Wooldridge accepted the risks involved in a horserace he came to watch. As a
reasonable participant in the race, which is a fast and competitive sport, the
horseman was expected to concentrate on the race and not on the spectator. In the
course of a fast moving competition such as this one, he could be expected to make
errors of judgment. As long as the damage was not caused recklessly or
deliberately, the participant in a race could not be held liable for the spectators
injuries because he was not negligent, i.e. not in breach of his duty.

13) Smith v. Baker case

Plaintiff was an employee at the stone drilling site wherre he got serious injuries
from felling of a stone on hime by the crane which was used to lift and pass the
stones.No prior warning was given. One of the other employees previously complained
about the issue to the manager. decision- 1. The defendant is liable for the
negligence as there were no due precautions taken by the defendant to prevent the
injury to the plaintiff. Volenti non fit injuria doesn’t apply here as the
plaintiff didn’t give consent as mere knowledge of the risk doesn’t mean consent to
the risk.

14) Padmavati v Dugganaika

In the case of Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the plaintiffs had asked for a lift in the
jeep of the defendants and while travelling in it one of the screws of the wheel of
the jeep fell out, as a result, the jeep crashed and it caused the death of one of
the plaintiffs. In the case, the Court held that the defence of volenti non fit
injuria will apply and thus the defendants were not liable because by sitting in
the jeep the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of being injured in an accident.
15) Dann v Hamilton
The claimant got into the back of a car driven by the defendant, who she knew to be
drunk. She was not under any compulsion, nor was there any necessity for her to get
in. The claimant had driven around with the defendant earlier in the evening, and
was aware that he had been driving negligently.
The defendant got into an accident due to his drunken state. The defendant was
killed and the claimant was injured. The claimant sued the defendant’s estate in
negligence. The defendant’s estate admitted negligence, but raised the defence of
volenti non fit injuria.that the defence fails, and the claim succeeds.

16) Haynes v Harwood

In the case of Haynes v. Harwood (1935), 1 KB 146, the servant of the defendant
brought two horses in the town near a police station and left them to do some other
work. The horses were upset by the children and they broke free, seeing them in
rage the plaintiff who was a police officer went to stop the horses and in doing so
he got injured and brought a case against the owner for damages. The court held the
defendant liable because the defence of volenti non-fit injuria did not apply in a
rescue case.

17) Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Railway

The defendant had constructed a pond a diverting natural stream. heavy rain
destroyed it and escaped to the plaintiff's property damaging it. it was held that
heavy rainfall is not unpredictable and that the defendant should have taken
adequate measures beforehand. therefore he was held liable.

18) Fardon v Harcourt Rivington

The defendant and his wife went to a market. Leaving there dog inside their car.
After sometime the dog become excited broke the back glass. A broken glass went
into the plaintiff’s eye and then he lost his eye.
Issue:Inevitable accident or not?
Judgment:The defendant was not liable on the ground of negligence.

19) Nitro Glycerine case

a wooden case was to be transported to its destination was obtained by the
defendants, a company of carriers, and its substance was not conveyed. It was
discovered at an interim station that the contents had been leaking. Consequently,
the case was brought to the premises of the defendants, which they had leased from
the complainant, and the defendant’s servant proceeded to open the case for review,
but the nitro-glycerine it housed detonated. They killed all the people present,
and the building was destroyed. For damages sustained by parts of the building let
to other tenants as well as to the defendants, the landlord filed an action. As for
the place occupied by them, the defendants accepted their responsibility for waste
but denied it as for the rest of the house. In the first place, it was held that,
in the lack of a fair basis of doubt, the defendants were not obliged to recognise
that the contents of the packages were sold to them for carriage and that, without
such knowledge in fact and without negligence, they were not responsible for harm
incurred by the accident.

20) Innes v Wylie

The claimant tried to enter a room in a hotel to attend a society’s meeting. The
defendant, wrongly believing the claimant to have been expelled from the society
for threatening behaviour, instructed a policeman to block his path. When the
claimant tried to force his way past the policeman, the policeman pushed him back.
The claimant sued the defendant for instructing the policeman to assault him.The
judge instructed the jury that if the policeman had actively pushed the claimant,
there was an assault. If, on the other hand, the policeman had acted as a passive
obstacle, akin to a door or wall, there would be no assault. The jury held that
there had been an assault.
21) Rose v Ford
In the case of Rose vs. Ford, the House of Lords, for the very first time, the
survival of cause of action was recognized by the court. A girl aged 23 years got
seriously wounded due to the negligence of the defendant. she was driving a motor
cycle which collided with the defendant's motor car.Her leg had to be cut off and
after a few days, she died. The defendant is liable to pay the girl's father,
according to the court.

22) Bakers v Bolton

In this case the plaintiff and his wife were travelling in a stagecoach which
overturned due to he was injured and his wife died. he demanded compensation for
the loss of a companion. the court only granted compensation for medical bills,
injuries and loss due to those injuries. he was however not granted any
compensation for the death of his wife.

23) Benham v Gambling

In Benham v. Gambling, the House of Lords laid down certain principles to determine
the quantum of damages, in situations where a person’s normal life span of life is
shortened because of the wrong committed by the Plaintiff.