Skip to main content

Landmark Cases through which Law of Torts has evolved - By Isha

Landmark Cases through which Law of Torts has evolved – By Isha


  1. Ashby vs. White: 

In this case, the plaintiff was a valid voter at a parliamentary election. The defendant, the returning officer at a voting booth, wrongfully disallowed the plaintiff from exercising his franchise. Now, there was no loss, monetary or otherwise, suffered by the plaintiff. Even the candidate for whom, he wanted to vote won the elections. Nevertheless, the plaintiff succeeded in his action against the defendant, for the simple reason that the plaintiff’s  legal right was violated.


  1. Bhim Singh vs. State of J&


The plaintiff an MLA Of J&K assembly was wrongfully arrested and detained by the police, while he was proceeding to the assembly. Further, he was not produced before the magistrate within the stipulated period. This act was a violation of both his fundamental and legal right. Finally, it was held that the state was liable and was compelled to pay damages to Mr. Bhim Singh.


  1. Gloucester Grammar School

In this case, a school teacher, set up a rival school in the same locality. As he charged low fees, students dropped out of the plaintiff’s school and joined the defendant’s school. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had intended to cause wrongful loss to him. It was held that the plaintiff had no remedy, as there was no legal wrong committed by the defendant. Thus, in this case, there is monetary loss to the plaintiff, but there has been no violation of his legal right. Hence, there is no case of tort.

Thus, a legal act that has been done maliciously will not make a defendant liable. Only if the plaintiff shows that he has suffered injury on account of the defendant’s illegal act, then he can claim damages.


  1. Hall vs Brooklands Auto racing club:

The plaintiff was a spectator at a motorcar race. Due to collision between two racing cars, one of it rammed into the spectator’s stand and injured the plaintiff. The court held the organizers were not liable, as the plaintiff impliedly took the risk of such injury.


  1. Haynes vs. Harwood

In Haynes vs. Harwood, the defendant left a horse carriage outside a building, absolutely unattended. Some urchins playing nearby threw stones at the horse. The horse unbridled itself and started running. This frieghtened the passer-by and everybody started running. A police constable, who was on duty in a nearby police station, decided to take charge of the situation and succeeded in stopping the horse. In the process of doing so, he sustained injuries and claimed damages from the defendant. The defendant was held liable and was prevented from setting up the defence of Volenti non fir Injuria.


  1.  Donoghue vs. Stevenson

A man bought a bottle of ginger beer for his girlfriend manufactured by the defendant. The lady drank the contents of the bottle directly. Later, she poured the remaining contents into a glass. To her utter shock, she noticed that a dead snail popping out of the bottle. She fainted and fell ill, as she had already consumed a portion of the drink. It was held that the manufacturer was liable to the lady for negligence.


  1. State Bank of India vs. Shyama Devi

The respondent, Mrs Shyama Devi, opened a savings account with the plaintiff’s predecessor ( Imperial Bank of India) at its Allahabad branch. The respondent gave some cash and cheque to one Kapil Deo Shukla, who was a friend of the respondent’s husband and employed in the said bank, for being deposited in her account. The said payments were made to Kapil Deo Shukla in his capacity as the respondent’s husband’s friend. No receipt or voucher was obtained indicating the said deposits. The bank’s servant instead of making the deposits in the respondent’s account, got the cheque encashed and misappropriated the amount. He, however, made false entries in the respondent’s passbook and the bank’s ledgers outside the course of employment and the appellant bank could not be made liable for the fraud committed by its servant.




Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more