Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Imp Case For Torts
Imp Case For Torts
nd
Semester
Case Details
Topic
Salmond - A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is action in common law for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively a
breach of contract or breach of trust or other equitable obligation.
Winfield - Tortious liability arises from the breach of duty primarily afixed by law. The duty is towards persons in general and its breach is
redressable by an action for unliquidated damages.
Fraser - Tort in an infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving a right of compensation at the suit of the injured party.
Donaghue vs. Stevenson
A purchased ginger beer in a restaurant for his woman friend. She
Rule of privity of contract
drank a part of it and poured the rest into a glass. Thereby, she saw a
was abolished in tort.
1932
dead snail in the drink. She sued the manufacturer. It was held that
the manufacturer had a duty towards the public in general for making
sure there are no noxious things in the drink even though there was no
contract between the purchaser and the manufacturer.
Klaus Mittelbachert vs. East India
Lufthansa Airlines had a contract with Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental for Contract is not
the stay of its crew. One of the co-pilots was staying there took a dive
Hotels Ld
necessary.
in the pool. The pool design was defective and the person's head hit
AIR 1997
the bottom. He was paralyzed and died after 13 yrs. The defendants
plead that he was a stranger to the contract. It was held that he could
sue even for the breach of contract as he was the beneficiary of the
contract. He could also sue in torts where plea of stranger to contract
is irrelevant. The hotel was held liable for compensation even though
there was no contract between the person and the hotel and the hotel
was made to pay 50Lacs as exemplary damages.
Municipal Corp of Delhi vs.
A clock tower was not in good repairs. It fell and killed several people.
Ingredients of Tort
Subhagvanti
MCD was held liable for its omission of repairs.
Act or omission of an act.
AIR 1966
Donaghue vs. Stevenson
See above.
Ingredients of Tort
Act or duty must be
1932
imposed by law.
Ashby vs. White
The defendant wrongfully prevented the plaintiff from voting. Even
Ingredients of Tort
1703
though there was no damage, the defendant was held liable.
Injuria Sine Damno
Bhim Singh vs. State of J K
Plaintiff was an MLA and was wrongfully arrested while going to
Ingredients of Tort
AIR 1986
assembly session. He was not produced before a magistrate within
Injuria Sine Damno
the requisite period. It was held that this was the violation of his
fundamental rights. Even though he was release later, he was
awarded 50,000RS as exemplary damages by SC.
Glaucester Grammer School's case Defendant opened a rival grammer school in front of an existing one
Ingredients of Tort
1410
thereby causing the fees of the existing one to be reduced from
Damnum sine Injuria
40pence to 12 pence. He was not held liable as he did not violate any
legal right of the plaintiff.
Ushaben vs. BhagyaLaxmi Chitra
Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the cinema house to
Ingredients of Tort
restrain them from showing the movie Jai Santoshi Maa. It was
Damnum sine Injuria
Mandir
contended that the movie depicts the goddesses Laxmi, Saraswati,
AIR 1978
and Parvati in bad light, which is offensive to the plaintiff. It was held
that hurt to religious sentiments is not recognized as a legal wrong.
Since there was no violation of a legal right, an injunction was not
granted.
Chesmore vs. Richards
1879
Plaintiff had been drawing water from underground for past 60 yrs.
The defendant sunk a bore well on his land and drew huge quantity of
water which diminished the water supply of the plaintiff. It was held
that the defendant was not liable because he was only exercising his
right and did not violate any right of the plaintiff.
The defendant company delivered a telegram that was not meant for
the plaintiff to the plaintiff. Based on the telegram, the plaintiff supplied
some order which was not accepted by the sender of the telegram.
Plaintiff suffered heavy losses and sued the defendant company. It
was held that the company owed a contractual duty only to the sender
of the telegram and not to the receiver. Hence they were not liable.
Ingredients of Tort
Damnum sine Injuria
The defendants sunk a shaft in their own land which caused the water
to become discolored and unsuitable for the plaintiff. It was held that
1 of 20
even if the defendant did it with malice, he had not violated any right of
the plaintiff and hence was not liable.
General Defenses
Woolridge vs. Sumner
1963
The plaintiff and the defendant were members of a shooting party. The
defendant shot a bird but the bulled ricocheted off a tree and hit the
plaintiff. The defendant was not held liable because it was an accident
and the defendant did not intent it and could neither have prevented it.
It was held that criminal activities of an unruly mob is not an act of
God.
The defendant used spring guns in his property without notice. It was
held that he used excessive force and so was liable for plaintiff's injury
even though the plaintiff was trespassing on his property.
Force feeding of a hunger striking prisoner to save her was held to be
a good defense to an action for battery.
Sparks from an engine caused fire in appellant's woods that existed in
his land adjoining the railway track. It was held that since the company
was authorized to run the railway and since the company had taken
proper care in running the railway, it was not liable for the damage.
Strict Liability
Ryland vs. Fletcher
1868
The defendant hired contractors to build a reservoir over his land for
providing water to his mill. While digging, the contractors failed to
observe some old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir that
lead to plaintiff's mine on the adjoining land. When water was filled in
the reservoir, the water flooded the mine through the shafts. The
plaintiff sued the defendant. The defendant pleaded that there was no
intention of causing harm and since he did not know about the shafts,
he was not negligent either even though the contractors were. Even
so, he was held liable.
J Blackburn observed that when a person, for his own purposes,
brings to his property anything that is likely to cause a mischief if it
escapes, must keep it at his peril and if it escapes and causes
damage, he must be held liable. He can take the defense that the
thing escaped due to an act of the plaintiff or due to vis major (act of
God) but since nothing of that sort happened here, then it is
unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.
Strict Liability
2 of 20
Re Polemis
1921
3 KB 560 (CA)
Exception to Strict
Liability Plaintiffs own
wrong
Servants of the defendant negligently let fall a plank into a ships hold
containing petrol in metal containers. The impact of the plank as it hit
the floor of the hold caused a spark, and petrol vapor was ignited. The
ship was destroyed. Arbitrators found that the spark could not have
been reasonably foreseen, though some damage was foreseeable
from the impact. The defendant was found liable because the
claimants loss was a direct, though not reasonably foreseeable,
result.
The defendant carelessly discharged oil from a ship in Sydney Harbor,
and the oil floated on the surface of the water towards the claimants
wharf. The claimants servants, who were welding on the wharf,
continued their work after being advised (non-negligently) that it was
safe to do so. Sparks from the welding equipment first of all ignited
cotton waste mixed up in the oil; then the oil itself caught fire. The
claimant sued for destruction of the wharf by fire. The defendant was
found not liable in negligence, because it was not reasonably
foreseeable that the oil might ignite on water in these circumstances.
Damage by fouling was foreseeable; damage by fire (the case here)
was not foreseeable. The Privy Council said that in the tort of
negligence Re Polemis was no longer good law, and liability
would lie only for foreseeable damage of the kind or type in fact
suffered by the claimant.
Remoteness of Damage
Direct Consequence
3 of 20
Exception to Strict
Liability Act of God (Vis
Major)
Exception to Strict
Liability Act of third
party
Strict Liability in India
Absolute Liability
Remoteness of Damage
Reasonably Foreseeable
Consequence