Case List For LLB 2

nd

Semester

Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Laws

Case Reference

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

Dickson vs. Reuter's Telegram Co

1877

Bradford Corporation (mayor of) vs.

Pickles 1895

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

Damnum Sine Injuria

Harm due to malice

1 of 20

Damnum Sine Injuria

Harm due to negligence

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

Laxmi Rajan vs. Malar Hospital

1998
Bird vs. Holbrook
1828

Stanley vs. Powell

1891
Ramalinga Nadar vs. Narayan
Reddiar
AIR 1971
Bird vs. Hollbrook
1892
Leigh vs. Gladstone
1909
Vaughan vs. Taff Valde Rail Co
1860

The plaintiff, a photographer, was taking photographs at a horse show,

during which, one horse rounded the bend too fast. As the horse
galloped furiously, the plaintiff was frightened and he fell in the course.
He was seriously injured. It was held that the defendants had taken
proper care in closing the course and the plaintiff, by being in the
show, agreed to take the risk of such an accident. The defendants
were held not liable.
A woman consented for a surgery to remove a lump from her breast.
But the hospital removed her uterus as well without any genuine
reason. It was held that removing of her uterus exceed beyond what
she had consented for.
The plaintiff was trespassing on the defendant's property and he was
hurt due to a spring gun. The defendant had put spring guns without
any notice and was thus held liable.

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.

Volenti non fit injuria

Volenti non fit injuria

Must not go beyond
consent.
Plaintiff the wrong doer
Does not apply if
plaintiffs action is not
related to defendants
action.
Inevitable Accident

Act of God Must not be

because of human factor.
Private Defense Must
not exceed reasonable
force required.
Necessity
Statutory Authority

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

Crowhurst vs. Amersham Burial

Board
1878

Branches of a poisonous tree were hanging outside the land of the

defendant. Plaintiff's cattle ate them and died. Defendant was held
liable because protrusion of branches out side his property were
considered as escaping from his property.
When the plaintiff's horse intruded over his boundary and ate
poisonous leaves of the defendant's tree, he was not held liable
because there was no escape of dangerous thing from defendants
property.
A branch of a tree growing on defendant's land broke and fell on
plaintiff's vehicle. It was held that growing regular trees is not a non
natural use of land and the branch fell because of an inherent problem
and not because of any negligence of the defendant and so he was
not liable.

Requirements for Strict

Liability Thing must
escape

Ponting vs. Noakes

1994
Noble vs. Harrison
1926

2 of 20

Requirements for Strict

Liability Thing must
escape
Requirements for Strict
Liability There must be
non-natural use of land

Eastern and South African

Telegraph Co. Ltd. vs. Capetown
Tramway Co
1902

Nichols vs. Marsland

1876

M.P. Electricity Board vs. Shail

Kumar
AIR 2002
Madras Railway Co. vs. Zamindar
1974

M C Mehta vs. Union of India

AIR 1987

Re Polemis
1921
3 KB 560 (CA)

The Wagon Mound (No. 1)

[1961] AC 388

The plaintiff's submarine cable transmissions were disturbed by

escape of electric current from defendant's tramway. It was held that
since the current was not causing any problem to regular users and it
was causing problem to the cables only because they were too
sensitive and so the defendant cannot be held liable. One cannot
increase his neighbor's liabilities by putting his land to special uses.
The defendant created artificial lakes to store rainwater. In that
particular year, there were exceptionally heavy rains, which caused
the embankments to break causing floods, which broke defendant's
bridges. It was held that since there was no negligence on the part of
the defendant and the flood happened only because of rains so heavy
that nobody could imagine, the defendant was not liable.
A person was killed by a live electric wire lying on the road. SC applied
the rule of strict liability and held that the defense of act of stranger is
not applicable because snapping of wire can be anticipated and the
Electricity Board should have cut off the current as soon as the wire
snapped.
The water collected in a pond for agricultural purposes escaped and
caused damage to the railway track and bridges. Here, the application
of this rule was restricted because the collection of water in such a
way is a necessity in Indian conditions and so it is a natural use of the
land. This mechanism to store rainwater is used throughout the
country and since ages. Therefore, the defendant was not held liable.
In this case, oleum gas from a fertilizer plant of Shriram Foods and
Fertilizers leaked and caused damage to several people and even
killed one advocate. In this case, the rule of Ryland vs Fletcher was
applied. However, the company pleaded sabotage as a defense. SC
went one step further and promulgated the rule of Absolute Liability. J
Bhagwati observed that the rule of Ryland vs Fletcher was a century
old and was not sufficient to decide cases as science has advanced a
lot in these year. If British laws haven't progressed, Indian courts are
not bound to follow their law and can evolve the laws as per the
requirements of the society.
It was held that an enterprise that engages in dangerous substances
has an absolute responsibility to ensure the safety of the common
public. It is only the company that can know the consequences of its
activities and so it must take all the steps to prevent any accident. If,
even after all precautions, accident happens, the company still should
be made absolutely liable for the damages. The reason being that the
company has a social obligation to compensate the people who
suffered from its activity. SC also laid down that the measure of
compensation should depend on the magnitude and capacity of the
enterprise so that it can have a deterrent effect.

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