UNIT I Q. Essen als of tort. Explain with cases?

Act/omission: To
cons tute a tort there must be an act, which can either be nega ve
or posi ve. There must be some breach of duty to cons tute such
wrongful act or omission. It means there was a duty to do or not to
do a certain ac on, or to behave in a par cular manner which a
reasonable man is expected to act under certain circumstances. If a
corpora on maintains a children park which has a poisonous plant
but fails to put proper fencing. If one of the children eats a fruit
from that tree and dies, then the corpora on can be held liable for
such an omission. A person cannot be held liable for social or moral
wrong. For example, if somebody fails to help a starving man then
he cannot be held liable because it is a moral wrong unless some
legal duty can be proved. Legal Damage: In order to cons tute tort,
breach of legal duty must be there. The legal right vested with the
plain ff should have been breached i.e certain act or omission have
resulted in the breach of legal duty. The ac on can be ins tuted if
there is a breach of legal right. For the injury sustained by the
plain ff, damages could be claimed by him. Legal damage could be
understood more clearly with the help of following maxims: 1.
Injuria sine damnum: “Injuria” means unauthorised interference
with the right of the plain ff. “Damnum” means harm or loss
suffered in terms of comfort, money, health etc. When there is
viola on legal right without any harm to the plain ff, the plain ff
can approach the court. The infringement of private right is
ac onable per se. What is required to show is the viola on of a
right in which case the law will presume damage. Thus, in cases of
assault, ba ery, false imprisonment, libel etc., the mere wrongful
act is ac onable without proof of special damage. The- court is
bound to award to the plain ff at least nominal damages if no
actual damage is proved In Ashby v. White, the plain ff was
detained by the defendant, a returning officer. The plain ff was a
qualified voter at the parliamentary elec on but due to deten on,
his vo ng right was violated. The plain ff sued the defendant for
viola on of his legal right. Since there is a right there is also a
remedy available for it. 2. Damnum sine injuria: According to this
maxim, there is some injury caused to the plain ff without any
unauthorised interference to plain ff’s legal right. A person cannot
claim damages in law even if the injury is caused due to the
deliberate act of the defendant, as long as the other party is
exercising his legal right. For example, a defendant set up a school
exactly in front of the school of the plain ff. The plain ff suffered
loss because of the rival school as he has to lower the fees and
many students took admission in defendant’s school. There is no
remedy available for the loss suffered by him. The defendant has
not done anything in excess of his legal right. There are many forms
of harm of which the law takes no account, (1) Loss inflicted on
individual traders by compe on in trade, (2) Where the damage is
done by a man ac ng under necessity to prevent a greater evil, (3)
Damage caused by defamatory statements made on a privileged
occasion, (4) Where the harm is too trivial, too indefinite or too
difficult of prove. (5) Where the harm done may be of such a nature
that a criminal prosecu on is more appropriate for example, in case
of public nuisance or causing of death, (6) There is no right of ac on
for damages for contempt of court. In the case, Bradford
Corpora on (Mayor of) Verses Pickles, the defendant was annoyed
when Bradford Corpora on refused to purchase his land in
connec on with the scheme of water supply for the inhabitants of
the town. In the revenge the defendant sank a sha over his land
inten onally and intercepted the underground water which was
flowing to the reservoir of the plain ffs. Held, that the plain ffs
have no cause since the defendant was exercising his lawful right
although the mo ve was to coerce the plain ff to buy his land.
Unit II Q. What are the general defences against tort ? Whenever a
case is brought against the defendant for the commission of a tort
and all the essen al elements of that wrong are present, the
defendant would be held liable for the same. Even in such cases,
the defendant can avoid his liability by taking the plea of the
defenses available under the law of torts. Some defences are
par cularly rela ng to some offences. In the case of defama on,
the defences available are fair comment, privileges andjus fica on,
etc. These general excep ons, or condi ons, or jus fica on of torts
are, 1. Consent or Leave and Licence. (Volen nonfit injuria), 2.
Plain ff the wrongdoer 3. Inevitable accident, 4. Act of God 5.
Private Defence 6. Necessity, 7. Statutory Authority, 1Volen non fit
injuria In case, a plain ff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no
remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to
complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no
one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or
waived. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied. Some
examples of the defence are:  When you yourself call somebody to
your house you cannot sue your guests for trespass;  If you have
agreed to a surgical opera on then you cannot sue the surgeon for
it; and  If you agree to the publica on of something you were
aware of, then you cannot sue him for defama on.  A player in the
games is deemed to be ready to suffer any harm in the course of
the game. In Hally. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, the plain ff was a
spectator of a car racing event and the track on which the race was
going on belonged to the defendant. During the race, two cars
collided and out of which one was thrown among the people who
were watching the race. The plain ff was injured. The court held
that the plain ff knowingly undertook the risk of watching the race.
It is a type of injury which could be foreseen by anyone watching
the event. The defendant was not liable in this case. 2 Plain ff the
wrongdoer There is a maxim “Ex turpi causa non oritur ac o” which
says that “from an immoral cause, no ac on arises”. If the basis of
the ac on by the plain ff is an unlawful contract then he will not
succeed in his ac ons and he cannot recover damages. In the case
of Bird v. Holbrook, the plain ff was en tled to recover damages
suffered by him due to the spring-guns set by him in his garden
without any no ce for the same. 3 Inevitable accident Accident
means an unexpected injury and if the same accident could not
have been stopped or avoided in spite of taking all due care and
precau ons on the part of the defendant, then we call it an
inevitable accident. It serves as a good defence as the defendant
could show that the injury could not be stopped even a er taking
all the precau ons and there was no intent to harm the plain ff. In
Stanley v. Powell, the defendant and the plain ff went to a
pheasant shoo ng. The defendant fired at a pheasant but the bullet
a er ge ng reflected by an oak tree hit the plain ff and he
suffered serious injuries. The incident was considered an inevitable
accident and the defendant was not liable in this case. 4Act of God
Act of God serves as a good defence under the law of torts. It is also
recognized as a valid defence in the rule of ‘Strict Liability’ in the
case of Rylands v. Fletcher. Essen als required for this defence are: 
Natural forces’ working should be there.  There must be an
extraordinary occurrence and not the one which could be
an cipated and guarded against reasonably. In Ramalinga Nadar v.
Narayan Reddiar, the unruly mob robbed all the goods transported
in the defendant’s lorry. It cannot be considered to be an Act of God
and the defendant, as a common carrier, will be compensated for
all the loss suffered by him. Private defence The law has given
permission to protect one’s life and property and for that, it has
allowed the use of reasonable force to protect himself and his
property.  The use of force is jus fied only for the purpose of self-
defence.  There should be an imminent threat to a person’s life or
property. Statutory authority if an act is authorized by any act or
statute, then it is not ac onable even if it would cons tute a tort
otherwise. It is a complete defence and the injured party has no
remedy except for claiming compensa on as may have been
provided by the statute. 6.Necessity; Leigh v. Gladstone, it was held
that the forcible feeding of a person who was hunger-striking in a
prison served as a good defence for the tort of ba ery.
Q. What do you mean by vicarious liability in Tort? Whether a
master is liable for commi ng fraud, the by his servant during
course of employment? Or Q. What do you mean by vicarious
liability? Explain with decided cases.
Vicarious liability is a legal principle where an employer (master) is
held responsible for the torts (wrongful acts) commi ed by an
employee (servant) during the course of their employment. Even if
the employer did not directly commit the wrongful act, they may
s ll be held liable due to their control and authority over the
employee. The idea is that since the employer benefits from the
employee's ac ons, they should bear the responsibility for harm
caused in the course of employment.
Elements of Vicarious Liability 1.Employer-Employee Rela onship:
There must be a rela onship where the employer has control over
the employee's ac ons. 2.Tort Commi ed in the Course of
Employment: The wrongful act must have occurred while the
employee was performing du es related to their job.
Vicarious Liability for Fraud, The , or Inten onal Torts
1. Fraud or The : Employers are generally not vicariously liable
for inten onal torts like fraud or the commi ed by an
employee. However, if the wrongful act is closely related to
the employee's du es, the employer may s ll be liable. For
example, if an employee steals money while handling cash in
their job, the employer might be liable.
Key Case: Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. (2001)
 Facts: A care worker sexually assaulted children in his care.
The employer argued that the assault was outside the scope
of employment.
 Held: The court held the employer vicariously liable because
the acts, though inten onal, were closely related to the
employee’s du es (caring for vulnerable children).
 2. Employer's Liability for Inten onal Torts: Generally, employers
are not liable for inten onal torts unless the act is closely
related to the employee’s du es. For example, in Mohammed
v. Muslim Council of Britain, the employer was found liable
because the employee’s fraud was related to his
responsibili es. Cases 1.Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. (2001)
o Facts: A care worker sexually assaulted children in his
care.
o Held: The employer was held vicariously liable because
the assaults occurred during the course of the
employee’s du es, even though the acts were
inten onal.
2. Century Insurance Co. Ltd. v. N.I. Road Transport Board (1942)
o Facts: A driver negligently caused an explosion while
handling petrol.
o Held: The employer was vicariously liable for the
employee’s negligent act, as it occurred within the
course of employment.
3. Salmond Test for Vicarious Liability
o Authorized Acts: Acts performed within the scope of
employment, making the employer fully liable.
o Unauthorized Acts: Acts not authorized, but closely
connected to the employment du es. The employer may
s ll be liable in such cases.
Conclusion Vicarious liability holds employers responsible for their
employees' wrongful acts if commi ed in the course of
employment. While it typically applies to negligence, it can also
extend to inten onal torts when they are closely ed to the
employee’s job. However, the employer is generally not liable for
personal or criminal acts of the employee unrelated to the job.
What is Negligence?
Negligence in tort law refers to a failure to take reasonable care to
avoid causing injury or loss to another person. It occurs when a
person (the defendant) breaches a duty of care owed to someone
(the claimant) by ac ng in a careless or unreasonable manner,
resul ng in harm. It is one of the most common bases for civil
liability. Key Elements of Negligence To establish negligence, the
claimant must prove the following essen al elements: 1.Duty of
Care: The defendant owed the claimant a duty to act with
reasonable care. 2.Breach of Duty: The defendant failed to meet the
required standard of care. 3.Causa on: The breach of duty directly
caused the harm or loss suffered by the claimant.4. Damage: The
claimant must have suffered actual harm or damage as a result of
the breach. Important Features of Negligence
1. Duty of Care * A duty of care exists when the defendant owes a
legal obliga on to the claimant to act in a certain way. The duty can
arise from various circumstances, such as a rela onship of
proximity or foreseeability of harm.
 Case: Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) Facts: Mrs. Donoghue drank
ginger beer that contained a snail and suffered illness. She sued
the manufacturer for negligence. *Held: The House of Lords
established the "neighbour principle," which says that a person
owes a duty of care to anyone who is closely and directly
affected by their ac ons, even if there is no direct contractual
rela onship. 2. Breach of Duty A breach of duty occurs when the
defendant fails to meet the standard of care expected. The
standard of care is usually that of the "reasonable person." This
means the defendant is expected to behave in the same way as a
reasonable person would in similar circumstances. *Case: Blyth
v. Birmingham Waterworks (1856) Facts: A water company failed
to maintain a hydrant, and it caused water to flood a neighbor’s
house. *Held: The court ruled that the company was not
negligent, as it had acted with reasonable care to maintain the
 hydrant. The standard of care was that of a "reasonable person,"
not an absolute guarantee against accidents.
3. Causa on The claimant must prove that the defendant’s breach
directly caused the harm suffered. There are two tests for
causa on: factual causa on and legal causa on (proximate cause).
*Factual Causa on: Was the harm caused by the defendant's
ac ons? The "but for" test is used here: But for the defendant’s
breach, the harm would not have occurred.
*Legal Causa on (Proximity): Was the harm a foreseeable
consequence of the breach? Even if the harm was caused, the law
must determine whether it is fair and just to hold the defendant
liable. Case: Barne v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management
Commi ee (1969) Facts: A man was sent home from a hospital
despite complaining of poisoning. He later died. The claimant sued
for negligence. *Held: The court found that although the hospital
was negligent in not trea ng the pa ent, he would have died
anyway due to the severity of the poisoning. Thus, causa on was
not established, and the claim was dismissed.
4. Damage *The claimant must have suffered actual harm or
damage. Without damage, there is no claim for negligence, even if
there is a breach of duty. Case: Wagon Mound (No. 1) (1961) Facts:
The defendants negligently spilled oil into the harbor, which led to a
fire when the oil was ignited by a spark. *Held: The court ruled that
the defendants were only liable for damage that was foreseeable.
The type of damage (fire) was not foreseeable in this case, so no
liability was imposed. Conclusion Negligence is the failure to
exercise reasonable care, leading to harm or damage to another
person. The key elements include a duty of care, breach of that
duty, causa on, and actual damage. Cases like Donoghue v.
Stevenson, Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks, and Wagon Mound
illustrate these concepts. The law also considers factors like the
standard of care, res ipsa loquitur, and contributory negligence,
which affect the outcome of negligence claims.
Q. What is absolute liability tort ? Defini on: If an industry or
enterprise is engaged in some inherently dangerous ac vity from
which it is deriving commercial gain and that ac vity is capable of
causing catastrophic damage then the industry officials are
absolutely liable to pay compensa on to the aggrieved par es. The
industry cannot plead that all safety measures were taken care of
by them and that there was negligence on their part. Absolute
liability tor easors will not be allowed any defence of excep ons,
neither can they take up any defence such as ‘Act of God’ or ‘Act of
Stranger’. Essen al elements Absolute liability is applicable 1.
where those enterprises which are involved in hazardous or
inherently dangerous ac vi es. 2. where the escape of a dangerous
thing from one’s own land is not necessary. Absolute liability is
applicable to those injured within the premise and outside the
premise. 3. It is a principle which claims an individual liable without
his being at fault. This is the ‘no fault liability principle’.
In M.C Mehta v. Union of India, oleum gas leaked from one of the
unit of Shriram Foods fer lizer Industry in the city Delhi. Due to the
leakage of this gas, many people were affected. If the rule of strict
liability would have been applied in this situa on then it would
have been easy for the defendant to escape by saying that the
damage was due the act of stranger. Jus ce Bhagwa also stated
that the rule of strict liability was evolved in 19th century, the me
when nature industrial developments was at primary stage, in
today’s modern industrial society where hazardous or inherently
dangerous industries are necessary to carry out development
programme, thus this old rule cannot be held relevant in present
day context. Also one cannot feel inhibited by this rule which was
evolved in the context of totally different social and economic
structure. The court in this case by applying the rule of absolute
liability held the defendant liable. As per the direc ons of the court,
the organisa ons who filed the case could claim the compensa on
on behalf of the vic ms.
Q.Res ipsa Loquitor? At the end, the important points related to this
maxim can be summarised as follows, 1. By applying this maxim the
burden of proof is shi ed from the plain ff to the defendant.
Instead of the plain ff proving negligence the defendant is required
disprove it. The maxim is not a rule or law. It is a rule of evidence
benefi ng the plain ff by not requiring him to prove negligence. 2.
The maxim applies when— 1. the injurious agency was under the
management or control of the defendant, and 2. the accident is
such as in the ordinary course of things, does not happen if those
who have the management use proper care. 3. The rule that it is for
the plain ff to prove negligence is in some cases, of considerable
hardship to the plain ff, because it may be that the true cause of
the accident lies solely within the knowledge of the defendant who
cause it. The plain ff can prove the accident but he cannot prove
how it happened so as to show its origin in the negligence of the
defendant. The hardship is avoided to considerable extent by the
maxim. 4. The rule of Rylands Verses Fletcher is not an illustra on
of the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The liability arising out of the
principle can be repelled by proof that the defendant was not
negligent, whereas under the Rylands rule it is not defence to say
that defendant took every possible precau on to prevent the
escape of the injurious thing. 3. The principle of res ipsa loquitur
has no applica on where the circumstances in which the accident
has taken place indicate that there must have been negligence but
do not indicate as to who was negligentor when the accident is
capable of two explana ons. Also, the maxim does not apply when
the facts are sufficiently known. 4. Res ipsa loquitur is a common
sense approach, not limited by technical rules, to the assessment of
the effect of evidence in certain circumstances. It means that a
plain ff prima facie establishes negligence where, 1. it is not
possible for him to prove precisely what was the relevant act or
omission which began the events leading to the accident,
Q. Write about false imprisonment ? False imprisonment is an
inten onal tort. A tort is a wrongful act that results in harm to
another. That harm can be a physical or psychological injury, or
damage to property. The type of tort is determined by the mental
state of the tor easor (the person commi ng the tort). Unlike torts
that occur through car accidents or slips and falls, inten onal torts
have nothing to do with negligence or reckless behavior. Instead,
inten onal torts are acts commi ed with a purpose -- with intent.
The tor easor inten onally commits an act that causes harm to
another. Defini on The commonly accepted defini on of false
imprisonment defines the tort as: 1. the inten onal restraint of
another person’s liberty, and freedom of movement 2. against their
will, and 3. for a short period, however short it may be 4. without
legal jus fica on. Essen al elements 1. Classifica on 1. Under
criminal law, whether the restraint is total or par al, the same is
ac onable. (a) When the restraint is total and the person is
prevented from going out of certain circumscribed limits, the
offence is that of ‘wrongful confinement’ as defined in Sec on 340
of IPC. (b) Sec on 339 defines wrongful restraint, which is also a
crime under the I.P.C. 2. Under tort law, par al restraint is not a
tor ous liability, while false imprisonment is a tort. 2. Inten on of
confinement 1. There should be a total restraint of the liberty of a
person. (a) The deten on of the person may be either 1. actual,
that is, physical, e.g. laying hands upon a person; or 2. construc ve,
that is, by mere show of authority, e.g. by any officer telling anyone
that he is wanted and making him accompany. 3. The period of
confinement 1. The deten on must be unlawful. The period for
which the deten on con nues is immaterial. But it must not be
lawful. 4. Lawful jus fica on 1. A law enforcement officer will not
be liable for false arrest where he or she has probable cause for an
arrest. The arres ng officer bears the burden of showing that his or
her ac ons were supported by probable cause. For example, if a
police officer has learned that a man in his for es with a red beard
and a baseball cap has stolen a car. The officer sees a man matching
this descrip on on the street and detains him for ques oning about
the the . The officer will not be liable for false arrest, even if it is
later determined that the man she stopped did not steal the car,
since she had probable cause to detain him. 5. Knowledge of the
plain ff 1. Knowledge of plain ff is not necessary, since it is
possible to falsely imprison drunk, asleep or a person of unsound
mind.Lord Atkin has stated that in all such cases damages will be
reduced and such award of damages may be affected on whether
the plain ff is conscious about it. 2. In the case (a) In the case
Meering v. Grahame , the plain ff was held in a room and
ques oned, because his employer, the defendant thought him to be
a thief. It was a false imprisonment. The Court determined that,
even though the plain ff was unaware that he was being falsely
imprisoned, the defendant acted in a way that clearly indicated that
their inten on was to confine the plain ff. So, the defendant was
held guilty of false imprisonment 6. Nature of confinement1. To
cons tute imprisonment the depriva on of the plain ffs liberty
should be complete that is there must be on every side of him a
boundary drawn beyond which he cannot pass. 2. It is not
imprisonment to prevent the plain ff from going in certain
direc ons if he is free to go in other direc ons and thus there will
be no ac on for false imprisonment (Par al Restraint). 3. If a person
has induced another to put himself or herself in a place
In the case Bhim Singh vs. State of J&K This case deals with the
issue of illegally detaining an MLA by the name of Bhim Singh by
the police authori es in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. As per the
facts of the case, the former had been suspended from the J&K
Assembly on August 17, 1985 and had ques oned the same in the
High Court of the state, which stayed the suspension in September.
He was on his way to Srinagar from Jammu on the intervening night
of September 9-10, 1985. He was arrested on his way by the police
authori es and was taken away.
1. Ba ery?
Ba ery is a more straigh orward tort because it involves direct
physical contact with another person, and the focus is on the
unlawful nature of the contact, rather than its harm or intent.
Elements of Ba ery:
 Force: Any form of physical contact, whether it results in harm
or not, can be classified as ba ery if it is non-consensual and
unlawful.
 Unlawfulness: If the contact is not jus fied by consent or by
law (such as self-defense), it is unlawful.
 Intent: The defendant must have intended to make the
physical contact, but the level of harm (such as injury) is not
relevant in establishing ba ery.
Extended Examples of Ba ery:
 Throwing an object: If someone throws an object (like a ball or
cup) at another person, it may not even directly touch them,
but if it hits them, it’s s ll considered ba ery.
 Medical procedures: In a medical context, if a doctor performs
a procedure without the pa ent’s consent, this could be
ba ery, unless the pa ent consented beforehand.
Case Law:
 Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1969): The
defendant accidentally drove onto a police officer's foot and
refused to move his car when ordered. The court found that
while the ini al act may have been accidental, his refusal to
move the car a er realizing the situa on amounted to ba ery.
 Wilson v Pringle (1987): The court ruled that a playful act
(such as a schoolboy pulling another boy's bag) was not
considered ba ery unless the conduct was "hos le" or
intended to harm.
2. Assault?
Assault does not require actual physical harm, but it involves the
crea on of fear or apprehension of imminent harm or force.
Elements of Assault:
 Threat of immediate harm: The defendant must cause the
vic m to believe they are about to be harmed.
 Immediacy: The threat of harm must be immediate, and not in
the future.
 Intent: There must be an inten onal act by the defendant that
causes the vic m to reasonably fear harm.
Extended Examples of Assault:
 Raising a fist in a threatening manner: This is classic assault,
even if the person doesn't actually strike the vic m.
 Poin ng a weapon: If someone points a gun or knife at
another person, causing them to fear being shot or stabbed,
it's assault, even if the weapon is not discharged.
Case Law:
 R v. Ireland (1997): This case involved a man who made silent
phone calls to his ex-girlfriend, which caused her to fear that
he would harm her. The court held that assault can occur
through words or ac ons that cause apprehension of
immediate harm.
 Stephens v Myers (1830): The defendant advanced towards
the plain ff in a threatening manner with clenched fists and
was restrained before he could strike. The court found that
the ac ons cons tuted assault, even though no actual harm
occurred.
Q. Trespass to land or property? DEFINITION Trespass to land or
movable property occurs where a person directly enters upon
another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or
places or projects any object upon the land. This tort is ac onable
per se without the need to prove damage. By contrast, nuisance is
an indirect interference with another's use and enjoyment of land,
and normally requires proof of damage to be ac onable.
THE WAYS IN WHICH TRESPASS MAY OCCUR 1. Entering upon land
Walking onto land without permission, or refusing to leave when
permission has been withdrawn, or throwing objects onto land are
all example of trespass to land. For example, see Basely v Clarkson
(1681) 3 Lev 37, below. 2. Trespass to the airspace Trespass to
airspace above the land can be commi ed. In Kelsen v Imperial
Tobacco Co [1957] 2 QB 334, D commi ed trespass by allowing an
adver sing board to project eight inches into P's property at ground
level and another above ground level. 3. Trespass to the ground
beneath the surface In Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC
351, the Ds mined from their land through to the P's land. This was
held to be trespass to the subsoil. 4. POSSESSION OF LAND This tort
developed to protect a person's possession of land, and so only a
person who has exclusive possession of land may sue. Thus, a
landlord of leased premises does not have exclusive possession, nor
does a lodger or a licensee. However, a tenant or subtenant does.
Where there is jus fica on to enter it will not be treated as
trespass-Madhav Vithal Kudwa v. Madhavdas Vallabhdas.
5. CONTINUING TRESPASS A con nuing trespass is a failure to
remove an object (or the defendant in person) unlawfully placed on
land. It will lead to a new cause of ac on each day for as long as it
lasts (Holmes v Wilson and others (1839) 10 A&E 503; Konskier v
Goodman Ltd [1928] 1 KB 421). Rights of entry 1. A person may
exercise a lawful right of entry onto land, for example: 2. A private
right of way granted to the defendant; 3. A public right of way; 4. A
right given by the common law, such as the right to abate a
nuisance.
Ryland v/s Fletcher And The Rule Of Strict Liability? A person is
generally; liable for all the wrongs commi ed by him. However,
there are certain instances where an individual can be prosecuted
for an event despite taking necessary precau ons and with no fault
or inten ons on his part. Strict liability is one such principle that
makes a person accountable by recognizing ' no fault liability'.
It was the judgment given in the landmark case of Ryland v Fletcher
which laid down this legal doctrine that incurs liability on a party
without the plain ff having to prove negligence on the part of the
defendant. Ryland v. Fletcher And The Rule Of Strict Liability
Cita on: [1868 ] L. CITAR. 3 H.L. 330
Name Of Par es: Pe oner: Ryland v/s Respondent: Fletcher
Judges: Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth
Facts :The defendant got a reservoir constructed over his land to
provide water to his mill through an independent contractor. The
old disused sha s which had been present under the reservoir were
not no ced by the contractors as a result, they remained
unblocked. When water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through
the sha s and gushed to the adjoining coal mines of the plain ff,
damaging his property.
The defendant who possessed no knowledge of the sha s was not
negligent on his part. Issues: 1 Was the defendant's use of land
unreasonable? 2 Should he be made for all the damages caused to
the plain ff? Judgement: The Court Of Liverpool
The Court of Liverpool sided with the defendant declaring him not
guilty and further held that there was neither any trespass nor any
nuisance.
Later, an arbitrator who was appointed in December 1864 by court
order also declared that the defendant can't be held liable as he
wasn't aware of the mine sha s, further it was the independent
contractors who were negligent as they failed to block the sha s.
Essen al Elements Of Strict Liability:There must be the presence of 3
essen al elements to cons tute strict liability. They are as follows:
1.Dangerous Thing Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a
person on his land. Some examples of Dangerous things are- toxic gases,
rusty wires, explosives, etc.
illustra on: the defendant planted poisonous trees on his land whose
branches protruded into the neighbour's house. The plain ff's ca le
died a er consuming the leaves of the trees. The court held the
defendant liable for the same 2. Escape
The dangerous thing brought by a person on his land must also escape
the premises to be out of the reach and control of the defendant. In the
case of Mrs Read v Lyons & Co, it was held that since there was no
escape of dangerous things, therefore, there was no liability on the part
of the defendant 3. Non-natural Use Of Land
Finally, to make a person strictly liable, the defendant must make a non-
natural use of his land which must be bringing with it increased danger
to others. In the case of T.C. Balakrishnan Menon v. T.R. Subramanian, it
was held that the use of explosives in an open ground even on a day of
the fes val is a non-natural use of land.
Excep ons:There are 5 defences that a person can plead in a court of
law to escape from being held strictly liable. they are as follows:
1. Plain ff's own default A plain ff can not claim compensa on for the
loss sustained by him because of his very own ac ons. In the case
of Pon ng v. Noakes, the defendant was not held liable for the death of
the plain ff's horse who trespassed on his land and nibbled on the
leaves of poisonous trees, as it was the plain ff who was in wrong.
2. Act of God No liability can arise from acts or events which are beyond
the control of any human agency and are known as 'Acts of god'. The
very same principle was applied in the case of Nikolas v
Marshland.3.Consent Of Plain ff.4. Act Of 3rd Party
5. Statutory Authority Conclusion The principle proposed in the
landmark case of Ryland v. Fletcher plays a pivotal role in resolving
disputes where a party suffers damage despite the defendant not being
negligent. It is of utmost relevance in today's era of globaliza on where
a person can be made accountable for bringing dangerous thing onto his
premises which causes loss to others on escaping.
Q. What is third party insurance under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ?
Defini on; Third party insurance policy is a policy under which the
insurance company agrees to indemnify the insured person, if he is
sued or held legally liable for injuries or damage done to a third
party. The insured is one party, the insurance company is the
second party, and the person you (the insured) injure who claims
damages against you is the third party. Chapter XI of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with Provisions regarding insurance of
motor vehicles against third party risks. (a) Authorised Insurer The
term Authorised Insurer means an insurer for the me being
carrying on general insurance business in India (b)Cer ficate of
Insurance The expression Cer ficate of Insurance means a
cer ficate issued by an authorised insurer in pursuance of sub-
sec on (3) of sec on 147 defines certain terms like authorized
insurer, cer ficate of insurance, liability, policy, property etc., which
terms are relevant to motor insurance against third party. Some of
the defini ons are as under: Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988 deals with the insurance of Motor Vehicles against third party
risk. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into force on 1st
July,1988 and which is divided into XIV Chapters, 217 Sec ons and
two schedules, makes it compulsory for every motor vehicle to be
insured. The relevant provisions rela ng to awarding of
compensa on in Motor Vehicle Accidents has been provided in
Chapter X, Chapter XI and Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. These chapters deal with following subjects: 1. Chapter X
deals with No Fault Liability in certain cases. 2. Chapter XI of the Act
deals with Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risk, and
3. Chapter XII of the Act deals with establishment of Claims
Tribunals, applica on for and award of compensa on in cases of
accidents arising out of use of Motor Vehicles, recovery of amount
of compensa on from insurer as arrears of land revenue and other
procedural and incidental ma ers. Sec on 145(g) "third party"
includes the Government. In the Na onal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Fakir
Chand, third party should include everyone (other than the
contrac ng par es to the insurance policy), be it a person traveling
in another vehicle, one walking on the road or a passenger in the
vehicle itself which is the subject ma er of insurance policy. 1.
Third party insurance is compulsory for all motor vehicles. In G.
Govindan v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Third party risks
insurance is mandatory under the statute .This provision cannot be
overridden by any clause in the insurance policy. 2. Third party
insurance does not cover injuries to the insured himself but to the
rest of the world who is injured by the insured. 3. Beneficiary of
third party insurance is the injured third party, the insured or the
policy holder is only nominally the beneficiary of the policy. In
prac ce the money is always paid direct by the insurance company
to the third party (or his solicitor) and does not even pass through
the hands of the insured person. 4. In third party policies the
premiums do not vary with the value of what is being insured
because what is insured is the legal liability' and it is not possible to
know in advance what that liability will be. 5. Third party insurance
is almost en rely fault-based.(means you have to prove the fault of
the insured first and also that injury occurred from the fault of the
insured to claim damages from him)
Q. Short notes on the Composi on, Jurisdic on of District
Commission under CPA Act, 2019 ?The District forum is now
renamed as District Commission under the 2019 Act Composi on of
the District Forum (Sec on 10) Each District Forum shall consist of
the following : a. a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be
a District Judge, who shall be its President; b. two other members,
one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following
qualifica ons, namely :- (iv) be not less than thirty-five years of age,
(v) possess a bachelor’s degree from a recognized university,
(vi) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate
problems rela ng to economics, law, commerce, accountancy,
industry public affairs or administra on: Provided that a person
shall be disqualified for appointment as a member, if he- kmnek
a.) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an
offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves
moral turpitude; or b.) is an un-discharged insolvent; or c.) is of
unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or
d.)has been removed or dismissed from the service of the
Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the
Government; or e.) has, in the opinion of the state Government,
such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the
discharge by him of his func ons as a member; or f.) has such other
disqualifica ons as may be prescribed by the State Government
Method of appointment Every appointment under sub-sec on (I)
shall be made by the State Government on the recommenda on of
a selec on commi ee consis ng of the following, namely :- i) the
President of the State Commission - Chairman. ii) Secretary, Law
Department of the State - Member. iii) Secretary, incharge of the
Department - Member dealing with consumer affairs in the State
Provided that where the President of the state Commission is, by
reason of absence or otherwise, unable to act as Chairman of the
Selec on Commi ee, the State Government may refer the ma er
to the Chief Jus ce of the High Court for nomina ng a si ng Judge
of that High Court to act as Chairman.
Q. Define consumer as per Consumer Protec on Act ?
The expression consumer is defined in S. 2(1)(d) of the Act. The
defini on of the term 'consumer' given in clause (d) of sec on 2(1)
of the Act is comprehensive one so as to cover not only consumer
of goods but also consumer of services. The defini on is wide
enough to include in consumer not only the person who buys any
goods for considera on but also any user of such goods with the
approval of the buyer. Similarly, it covers any person who hires or
avails of any services for considera on and also includes any
beneficiary of such services, when availed with the approval of the
hirer. Thus, any user of goods or any beneficiary of services, other
than the actual buyer or hirer, is a consumer for the purpose of this
Act and he is competent to make a complaint before the Consumer
Redressal Forum under this Act. In addi on, in the 2019
Amendment Act, certain new services and goods have been added
under the ambit of the Consumer Protec on Act. 1. The defini on
of “consumer” includes those who make purchases online. 2.
Endorsement of goods and services, normally done by celebri es,
are also covered 3. In contrast to the 1986 Act, the defini on of
“goods” has been amended to include “food” as defined in the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006. This would also bring the
meteorically rising number of food delivery pla orms. 4. “telecom”
has been added to the defini on of “services” to bring telecom
service providers within the purvie. Such inclusion has not been
worded as “telecommunica on service” defined under the Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India Act, which would have included
internet, cellular and data services. 5. “product liability” is also
added whereby manufacturers and sellers of products or services
have been made responsible to compensate for any harm caused to
a consumer by defec ve products, manufactured or sold, or for
deficiency in services. the Supreme Court in its decision in Lucknow
Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta [(1994) 1 SCC 243] noted
that the word 'consumer' is comprehensive expression.
What is Nuisance? The term "nuisance" refers to an act that causes
harm, inconvenience, or discomfort to others. In legal terms, nuisance is
an interference with a person’s right to enjoy their property or the use
of public resources (like air, water, or roads). It can be both a civil wrong
(tort) and a criminal offense.
The law of nuisance is concerned with the preven on or remedying of
such interferences, where individuals or groups are deprived of the
quiet enjoyment of their property due to the wrongful acts of others.
Kinds of Nuisance: There are generally two types of nuisance:
1. Public Nuisance: Defini on: Public nuisance refers to an act or
omission that causes harm, danger, or inconvenience to the general
public or a sec on of the community. It affects public safety, health,
morals, or convenience. Examples: *Blocking a public highway, causing
traffic conges on. *Pollu on affec ng the air, water, or land on a large
scale. *Opera ng dangerous or hazardous ac vi es in a public area. Key
Point: It affects the community at large, not just an individual or a small
group.
2. Private Nuisance: Defini on: Private nuisance is the interference with
a person’s use or enjoyment of their land or property. It does not
necessarily affect the public at large, but it directly impacts an individual
or a small group of people. *Examples: Loud noises from a neighbor’s
party that disturb your sleep. *Fumes or
smoke from a factory that invade a nearby residen al property. *Water
leakage from an upper apartment damaging a lower one. Key Point: It
specifically affects the claimant's property or personal enjoyment, and
the harm is usually ongoing.
Examples of Both Types: *Public Nuisance Example:
If a factory releases toxic fumes that affect a large number of people in
the surrounding area, it cons tutes a public nuisance. This is because it
endangers the health and well-being of the general public. Private
Nuisance Example:
If a neighbor con nuously plays loud music late at night, disturbing your
sleep, this would be a private nuisance. The impact is personal and
localized to those who are directly affected by the noise.
Important Legal Principles in Nuisance:
1. Unreasonable Interference: For an act to be considered a
nuisance, the interference with another person's use of their
property must be unreasonable. This involves considering whether
the harm caused is significant enough to jus fy a claim.
2. Substan al Harm: The harm or interference must be substan al.
Minor inconveniences may not rise to the level of a nuisance.
3. Coming to the Nuisance: In some cases, a defendant might argue
that the claimant "came to the nuisance." This is a defense where
the defendant asserts that the claimant knowingly moved into an
area where the nuisance already existed (e.g., buying a house next
to a factory that emits noise).
4. Dura on of Nuisance: The ongoing nature of the nuisance can be a
key factor. A single event causing minimal harm might not be
sufficient, but repe ve or con nuous interference could lead to a
nuisance claim. Remedies in
Nuisance Cases:
 Injunc ons: A court order to stop or prevent the nuisance (e.g.,
closing down a factory causing pollu on or stopping a neighbor’s
loud music).
 Damages: Compensa on for harm suffered, such as the cost of
repairs or the loss of enjoyment of property.
 Abatement: Some mes, the person affected can take steps to stop
the nuisance themselves (e.g., removing an obstruc on on their
property), but this is usually only allowed if it’s a direct and
immediate threat.
Conclusion: The dis nc on between public nuisance and private
nuisance primarily depends on the scope of the interference and
the individuals affected. Public nuisance impacts society at large,
while private nuisance affects specific individuals or proper es.
Both types seek to protect individuals' rights to use and enjoy
their property without undue interference from others.
Q. What is no fault liability in MVC Act ? Introduc on : The term
‘accident’ has not been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. The term
‘accident’ was first me defined in Fenton v. Thorley & Co. Ltd. as
unlooked for mishap which is not designed nor expected. In United
India Insurance Co, Ltd. v. Somari Devi case it was observed by the
Patna High Court that the word ‘accident’ generally denotes an
event that take place without one’s foresight or expecta on, i.e. an
event which proceeds from an unknown cause or is unusual effect
of a known cause or con ngency. An accident which is unforeseen
is accident which term means some unexpected and unforeseen
event or overlooked mischief. It is an event happening without
concurrence of will of the person by whose agency it was caused
Defini on : Sec ons 140 to 144 of the Act, provides for payment of
compensa on on the principle of no fault liability i.e. without any
fault on the part of any party. Sec on 140 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 provides for liability to pay compensa on in certain cases
on the principle of no fault. 1. As per Sec on 142, permanent
disablement means, injuries involving a) permanent priva on of the
sight of either eye or b) the hearing of either ear, or c) priva on of
any member or joint; or d) destruc on or permanent impairing of
the powers of any members or joint; or e) permanent disfigura on
of the head or face 2. In case of death or permanent disablement of
any person resul ng from an accident which arise out of use of a
Motor Vehicle/s, the owner of offending vehicle/s shall be liable
jointly or severally to pay compensa on in respect of such death or
permanent disablement. 3. Under this sec on amount of
compensa on is a fixed amount of Rs. 50,000/- in case of death and
Rs. 25,000/- in case of permanent disablement. 4. For claiming such
compensa on, claimant is not required to plead that such accident
is occurred due to negligence or fault of the owner/ driver of the
vehicle and death or permanent disablement is result of that
accident. 5. Moreover, such claim shall not be defeated by reason of
any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the person
whose death or disablement has been occurred. (Na onal
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Honnappa)
6. Nor the quantum of compensa on shall be reduced due to
contributory negligence on the part of person who sustained
disablement or death. 7. Compensa on awarded under this sec on
does not barred the vic m to claim compensa on under any other
law being in force, though the amount of such compensa on to be
given under any other law shall be reduced by the amount of
compensa on payable under no fault liability under this sec on or
in accordance with the structured formula laid down under
schedule -2 to this Act read with Sec on 163A of the Act. 8. What is
material is that a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act is no bar to
claiming compensa on, if permissible, also under a different law.
The Double Bench of Gujarat High Court held that the heirs of
deceased in such case could claim compensa on both under the
Motor Vehicles Act for negligence of the driver of the tractor and
also under Workmen’s Compensa on Act, 1923 for death occurring
out of and in the course of employment. 9. If under Sec on 141(1),
the person has to pay under principle of fault, the total
compensa on shall be decided by the compensa on payable under
fault, and any difference from the no fault liability compensa on
shall be deducted. In Satvantkumar Harjit Singh Vig v. Aar Jayant
Lalwani case it was held that Sec on 140 is a racted even where
death is result or the consequence of the accident arising out of a
motor vehicle. What is necessary to see is whether the death is the
consequence of an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle.
Q. What are the Defence Available to Insurer under MVC Act ?
Liability of the insurer : Sec on 149 of the Act provides for liability
of insurer and defences available to insurer in a case of Motor
Accident filed before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and provides
for du es of insurers to sa sfy judgments and awards against
persons insured in respect of third party risks. If, a er a cer ficate
of insurance has been issued under sec on 147(3) in favour of
insurer , a judgement or award under sec on 147(1)(b) is obtained
against any person insured by the policy, then, the insurer shall pay
to the claimant, the sum assured payable, in respect of liability, the
costs and interest payable on that sum No sum shall be payable by
an insurer unless the insurer has been given a no ce by the Court,
to defend the ac on on any of the following grounds: a) That there
has been a breach of a specified condi on of the policy, being one
of the following condi ons:- i. A condi on excluding the use of the
vehicle a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the
contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for
hire or reward, or b) for organised racing and speed tes ng, or c) for
a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is
used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or without side-car
being a ached where the vehicle is a motor cycle;
Third Party Insurance: Defence Available to the Insurer : The
Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability except on the grounds
and not any other ground, which have been provided in Sec on
149(2). In recent me, Supreme Court while dealing with the
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act has held that even if the defence
has been pleaded and proved by the Insurance Company, they are
not absolve from liability to make payment to the third party but
can receive such amount from the owner insured. The courts one
a er one have held that the burden of proving availability of
defence is on Insurance Company and Insurance Company has not
only to lead evidence as to breach of condi on of policy or viola on
of provisions of Sec on 149(2) but has to prove also that such act
happens with the connivance or knowledge of the owner.