S.K. Shangtung lalkum v.

state of mansuri

It was held that an act of god as an exception o the rule of strict liability
well not be available in case of death due to falling of high tension electric
wire from pole due to lightning stroke or storm.

Consent of the plaintiff - Where the plaintiff has consented to the

accumulation of dangerous thing on defendants land. The liability uncle
strict liability rule will not arise. There is a maxim volenti non fit injuria will
be applicable in this exception

Such consent is implied where the source of danger is for common benefit
for the plaintiff and defendant.

E.g. when two people are living on the different floors of the same building
each of them is deemed to have consented to the installation of things of
common benefit such as writer system, electricity wiring. When water is
collected for common benefit of plaintiff and defendant then defendant will
not be liable for any injury caused by escape of water.

In a famous case of carstairs v. tailor. The plaintiff hired ground floor of a

building from the defendant the upper floor of building was occupied by the
defendant himself. Water stored on the upper floor leaked without any
negligence of defendant and it causes some injury to plaintiffs good.

It was held that water had been stored for the benefit of both plaintiff and
respondent and therefore respondent is not liable.

Act of 3rd party – If any harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger
who is neither the defendant nor his servant then defendant will not be
liable for any injury caused due to that stranger.

In a famous case of boxe v. jubb, the overflow from the defendant’s

reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by stranger then defendant
was not held liable for any injury caused to the plaintiff.

In a famous case of MP electricity board v. Shail kumar, it was held that the
rule of strict liability was applied and the defense of act of stranger was not
allowed in the cases of electricity wires falling on passenger or on general
public it was held in this case that the electricity board is liable and
responsible for the maintenance of electric poles and wires because it is
the duty of board to maintain the standards of electric supple as well as
buyer.

In this case authorities which are concerned with dangerous commodities

have extra duty to check out measures to prevent such mishaps.

In state of mizorum v H. lalram, it was held that compensation could be

awarded for the negligence on the part of the electricity department for
fluctuation of current that occurred die to fault in transformer and which
causes damage to television, refrigerators and other electric apparatus. It
will be immature that the injury caused inside the house

Statutory authority - any act under statutory authority will be a good

defense under strict liability

NW utilities ltd. v. London guarantee and co., it was held that statutory
authority can’t be pleaded as a defense when there is negligence on the
part of state.

In green v. Chelsea water works co. , the defendant co. had a statutory
duty to maintain continuous supply of water. A main pipeline burst without
any negligence on the part of company and as a result plaintiff premises
were flooded with water. It was held that the company will not be liable
under strict liability
City of v. Marrow – The plaintidd who was an experienced but not an
expert summer, he hit his head against the bottom of the pool when he took
due into swimming pool.

It was held that the presence of diving board at the pool was an invitation to
use and it was also clear that such use. Therefore the pool authorities were
held liable as there is a danger in pool due to insufficiency of water in the
pool

Delhi Jal board v. Rajkumar – The authorities vested with maintenance of

sewer body system shall be liable for any damage or for the death of their
employee due to any fatal accident as well as for the death of any person
while driving his vehicle over manhole.

Court observed that when a manhole is contracted the authorities must see
to it not only that it is properly covered but also that the manhole is in line
with the surface of the road . It is the duty of the authority to construct and
maintain manholes properly.

Municipal Corp. of Delhi v. Subhguanti – The buildings adjoining highway

must be maintained in such a condition as not to be dangerous for the
users. If any injurydue to dangerous structure is caused to the users of
highway the owner will be liable for damages.

Wilchick v. Marks and sibestone - The landlord is liable when he has

undertaken a duty to repair the building whenever necessary. In the above
case it was held that even though between the landlord and the tenant
there was no such agreement as regards the repair but they had reserved
the right to enter the premises and to the repairs whenever necessary.

Landlord would be liable to the third party if he had been injured due to lack
of repair of building.
Obligation towards trespasser

In a famous case of Robert Addy v. Deembreck. This case defines a

trespasser according to itone who goes upon land without invitation of any
sort and whose presence is either unknown to the prophereighiers or if
known then it is particularly objected.

If the occupiers is acquitted to the frequent act of trespass then is deemed

that head has licensed the entry of others on the land.

In lorry v. Walker – the defendant was the occupier of the land across
which the member of the public had used a shortcut towards the railway
station. The defendant on certain occasions objected to this practice but
had taken no effective steps to stop this trespass. One day the plaintidd
while crossing the field was seriously injured by a horse which the
defendant had kept their without any notice.

It was held that the plaintiff deeded to be there with trait permission of the
defendant and therefore the plaintiff was deemed to be a licensee so the
defendant was liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff.

Obligation towards children

An occupier must be careful in case of children in comparison to adults.

What is obvious danger for and adult may be a trap for children. It means
adult may aware of some danger for which children may not.

The occupier must fraud he child visitor even against such dangers from
which the adults do not need any protection.

Glogoov co. V. Tailore – The defendant controlled a public park, a child of

7 years of age picked up and ate some attractive looking berries on a shrub
and died because the berries were poisonous. The defendant had not
given sufficient warning about the deadly character of the berries. Father of
diseases child brought a suit in which the defendants were held liable.
Lord Summer said the child had no right to pluck the berries but at the
same time occupier had no right to expose such dangerous berries in the
approach of a child. The father of the child had duty to take care of his child
but in a place like public park everybody is not known to the
dangerousness of such berries as it was a hidden danger and the occupier
is always liable for the hidden danger which he had in his property.

If the occupier placed a notice board near to the shrubs then the sole
liability of occupier may be guarded.

Liability for dangerous animal

If a person transfer some dangerous animals to another person and the

another person may be injured by the animal transferred to him sometimes
the animal maybe further transferred to the 3 rd person and the 3rd person
may be injured by the animal.

Here, the liability of the transfer of animal will be discussed under 2 heads .

1. Liability towards immediate transferee.

2. Liability towards ultimate transferee.

Liability towards immediate transferee – The animals may be

transferred from one person to another either under a contract or by way of
gift or loan.

When the animal is transferred under a contract the liability of parties is

regulated by the term of contract.

The terms and conditions in a control may be express or implied.

An implied condition is that the goods shall reasonably fit for the purpose
for which they are required by the buyer. If the goods contain harmful
ingredients causing damage to the purchaser the seller is liable for that.

Grand v. Australian Knitting mills: Clothes causing irritation to the body due
to chemical present on it.
Frost v. Aylesberry berry co. – The milk cause disease b it contained
typhoid germs the seller is liable.

Liability towards ultimate transferee – To understand the ultimate

transferee.

X transfers a dangerous animal to y and y transfers the same to z. here, Z I

ultimate transferee and if Z is injured then how X can make liable for the
injury to Z.

To conclude the above liability towards an ultimate transferee we consider

two important conditions:

1. Liability for fraud.

2. Liability for negligence.

1) Liability for fraud – Fraud is a tort against a person who causes injury to
some person due to his false statement. Here, it is not necessary that
the person making a false statement makes it directly to the person
deceives/injured.

For example if A makes a fraudulent statement to B having reasons to

believe that the statement may be acted upon either by B or by C. In this
case if C acts upon the statement and is a Victim of fraudulent statement
then A will be liable towards C.

The famous case of Langridge v. Lavie – The defendant sold a gun to the
plaintiff’s father for the use of plaintiff and stated that the gun had been
made by a renowned manufacturer and was quiet safe. While using the
gun it burst and the plaintiff got injured.

It was held that even though the fraudulent statement was by defendant to
plaintiff’s father yet the plaintiff was entitled to sue against defendant
because the statement made but defendant was intended, fraudulent whih
was communicated to plaintiff and on which he had acted.
2) Liability for negligence – For the purpose of liability of the transferor
towards the ultimate transferee for negligence we consider 3 main
points:
a. Things must be dangerous per se.
b. Things not dangerous per se but actually dangerous and known to
transferor.
c. Things neither dangerous per se not known to be dangerous to
transferee.

a) Things dangerous per se : The things which are dangerous in

themselves or dangerous according to the circumstances are knows as
dangerous per se. There is duty of person who holds the thing to save
others who are likely to come in contact with the things which are
dangerous per se. For e.g. loaded firearms, poisons, explosives, etc.

Dixon v. Bell – he defendant caused his servant who was a girl of 13

years of age to be put in possession of gun. The girl while playing
caused injury to plaintiff who was a boy of 19 years of age by pulling the
trigger, the defendant was held liable for negligent act.

b) Things not dangerous per se but actually known to be dangerous

by the transferor – A transferor if selling some dangerous items has a
duty to warn the buyer about the danger and the precaution against the
things of failure of which makes transferor liable.

Farrant v. barns –The defendant delivered a box containing nitric acid

to the carrier but neither informed the carrier about the content of the
box nor warned him about the dangerous nature of the contents. Plaintiff
who was the servant of the carrier carried the same box on his shoulder,
the box burst causing burn injuries, it was held that the defendant was
liable.

c) Things neither dangerous per se nor known to be dangerous –

Before 1932 privity of contract is an absolute rule, means there was no
remedy against privity of contract but in 1932 a leading case name
Donoghue v. Stevenson exploded this rules. The plaintiff in this
accompanied by her friend went t o a restaurant and ordered for a bottle
of ginger bottles which sealed and opaque. When the bottle was served
to the plaintiff she noticed after consuming some part of the beer that
remains of snail were floating there.
In this case Lord Atkine stated a rule i.e. A manufacturer of product
which he sells in such a form as to show that he intends them to
reach the ultimate consumer without any possibility of examination
by intermediate. Any substance which will result in an injury to the
consumer owes a duty on the manufacturer.

Absolute liability
In the previous rule of strict liability some exceptions are available where
a respondent is not liable for strict liabilities. E.g. act of 3 rd party,
plaintiff’s own fault, act of god. While formulating a new rule in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India the Supreme Court itself termed the liability
recognized in the case as absolute liability and expressly stated that
such liability will not be subjected to any such exception as have been
recognized under Rayland v. Fletcher.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India – In this case the supreme Court was
dealing with claims arising from the leakage oleum gas on 4 th and 6th
December 1985 from one of the units of Shri Ram Prasad and
Fertilizers. As the consequence of this leakage it was alleged that one
advocate practicing in the teeshyari court had died and several others
were injured seriously the action was brought through a writ petition
under Article 32 by way of PUL. The court had in mind that within a
period of 1 year this was the second case of large leakage of deadly gas
as earlier union carbide plant in Bhopal case registered which is also
known as Bhopal gas tragedy in which around 3000 people were killed.
If the rule of strict liability to such like situation then those who had
established hazardous industries around thickly populated area could
 escape from their liability by using exception provided in strict liability.
For e.g. act of a stranger.
The Supreme Court of India took a bold decision holding that it was not
bound to follow the 19th century rule in 21s century where social and
economic conditions are all different and evolved a new rule named as
absolute liability and it is without any exceptions.
Now if anybody is injured due to non-natural use and escape of
dangerous thing from defendant’s property then defendant may not take
benefit of any exception and he will be absolutely liable for any injury
caused to the plaintiff. Justice Bhagwati pronounce he rule while acting
as the Chief Justice. This rule (strict liability) evolved in 19 th century
at a time when all these developments of science and technology
had not taken place and cannot afford any guidance in evolving
any standard of liability consisted with the constitutional norms
and the needs of the present day economy and social structure.
Law had to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the society.
Law cannot allow over judicial thinking to be constrained by
reference to the law as it prevails in England. We in India can’t hold
our hands back and Venture to evolve a new principle of liability
which English codes have not done.

Liability for animal

Scienter Rule – The liability of defendant under this rule depends upon the
knowledge of dangerous character of animal. This rule mainly implies
where the defendant has not been able to properly control the animal which
he knows or ought o know to be having the tendency to do the harm to
other. For the purpose of this rule we divide the animals in three categories
according to their dangerousness :

1. Animals which are dangerous in nature( ferrae naturae)

2. Animals which are not dangerous in nature (masutae naturae)
1. Animals which are dangerous in nature – If the animal which are
dangerous in nature gets out of control and causes damage to
somebody owner of animal will be liable./ This liability arises even
without the proof of negligence. For e.g. monkey or dog bites the
plaintiff then the keeper of defendant is liable for the injury.
Beherns v. bedtrum mills circus ltd. – Defendant operated a
circus, in a show elephant ran after the dog and a booth was knocked
down and the plaintiff got injured it was held that the respondent is
liable for the injury.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Halidevi 0 The plaintiff was the
resident of Champa district while going to her cattle field she
was attacked by wild animal due to this she suffered with
serious injuries, she filed a sue for recovery against the
divisional forest officer.
It was held that the mere fact that killing of wild animals was
prohibited under the law did not mean that the state had become
the owner those animals and nor did it create any liability on
state for the injuries caused by any wild animal.

2. Liability for keeping animals which are not dangerous in nature – Any
animal which is not belonging to the class of dangerous animals and
if any damage is caused by these animals then for making the
defendant liable 2 things have to be proved:
a.) That the animal in question had vicious nature which is not
common to the animals of that species.
b.) The defendant had the actual knowledge of viciousness.

Buckle v. Holmes – In this case the main facts are the class includes
dogs, cows, horses, etc which are not naturally dangerous. The
owner is not responsible for an damage caused by these animals but
if the animal has given the owner any indication of viciousness or
dangerousness then the owner liable for any act of the animal.
Torts to person

Assault Its and act of defendant which causes to the plaintiff reasonable
apprehension of the inflectio that some criminal force maybe used against
him by the defendant.

In other words when defendant by his at creates an apprehension in the

mind of the plaintiff that he is going to commit any wrongful act against the
body of the plaintiff then we may say, the worng of assailt is completed.

For this purpose it is also essential that there should be prima faci ability to
do the harm is present . For e.g. if the plaintiff lnows that pistol is unloaded
then there is no assault.

Steohans v. Miers – There was a meeing of some people was arranged in

which plaintiff and defendant were present due to some angry discussion
the defendant tried to thit the plaintidd but the other members of the
meeting restrained him it was held that there was no physical touch of any
blow to the polaintiff b ut it creates assault.

Battery – The wrong of battery consists following requirements or

essentials

1.There should be use of force

2.The use of force should be without any lawful justification.

1.) Use of force – Even the force is not punishable nor createws any
liability under civil law but still it may constitute some kinds of wrong.
 The force may be felt by touching one”s body and may be used even
without a bodily contact. For e.g. use of stick or throwing of water or
spotting on eany body or pulling someones’s chir . But in case of
infiction of heat or gas or odour would come under use of force
without touching anything.
2.) Without any lawful justification 0 To create the act of battery it is
essential that the use of force should be intentional and without any
lawful justification for e.g. in crowd one person touches the body
anoher without any violence or design of harm will not come under
battry if either of them uses violence against other to force his way in
a rule or inordinate manner it will be a battery.

Any harm which is volunterauly suffered causes no bettry. Harm which is

unintentional or caused due to pure accident is also not actionable under
battery.

Stenley v. Powel – Defendatn who was the member of a shooing paty

fired the palette form his gum and accidentally waounded the plaintiff, it
was held that the defendant is not liavle under battery whether he is liable
under negligence is a defferent issue.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

It means a total restrain for some period however short upon the liverty of
another without any sufficient lawful justification.
To constitute false imprisonment following essential are required to be
proved :
1. There should be a total restain on the liberty of a person
2. It should be without lawful justification.
 1.) Total restrain - Under criminal law whther the restrain is total or
partial both area ctionable if it is total restrain then punishable under
section 342 of UPC which defined in 340 . Whn this restain is not total
but only partial then it is known as wrongful retrain and punishable
under 341 and defined under 339 IPC. But in torts false impriosnmen
tis constituted inly when there is a toal restrain it means under torts
partial restrain is nota ctionable.

Birds v. Jonned – Defendant wrongfully closes a public footway the

plaintiff have to go by climbing over the fence. The plaintiff claimed for flase
imprisonment and it was hel that there was no false imprisonment ast here
was no total restrain , plaintiff was free to go backl or cross the bridge by
some path.

For false imprisonment it is not necessary thtat a person should be

ipmprisoned in fail or confined within the 4 walss. If there is asome restrain
which prevents a person from having the liberty of going beyond certain
limits then it will come under false imprisonment. For r.g. if a person was
restrain in a bus or train it will be false imprisonment.

If there are any means of estrain availavle then it cant tbe termed as total
restrain and hence there will be no galse imprisonment. The means must
be a reasonable way of getting out of detecntion.

It is a big question that the knowledge of the plaintiff about the restrain is
essential to constitute the wronf of false imprisonment.

Herring v. Boyle – It has been held in thos case that knowledge of

detention is essential in this case a school mster wrongfully refused to
permit a svhol bot to go woth hos mother unless the mother paid an
amount alleged to be due form him. The conversation between the school
master and the mother was no known to the bot it was hled that fact is now
known to the boy and hence no galse imprisonment was made.

Mcreing b. Gram white aviation co. – In this case it has been held that
the knowledge of imprisonment is not essential element for bringing an
action for fasle imprisonment because the wrong could be constiturted ven
without a person having the knowledge of the same.

According to Lord Atkin a person could be imprisoned without his

knowledge. A person can be imprisoned white he is asleep or is in a state
of drunkness or uncociousness. The damages might be diminished and
would be affected by his knowledge.

UNLAWFUL DETENTION

To constitute false imprisonment it is necessary that the restrain must be

unlawful and without justification.

Malcious prosectution

It is defined as a judicial proceeding instituted by one person against

another from wrongful or improper motive and without proable cause to
sustain it

In a famous case of West Bengal state Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Roy
– Suprene Court explained that there are 2 essential elements for
constituting malicious prosecution are required :

1. No probable or suit terminated in some way favcourable to the

defendant or accused.
2. Supreme Court explains Malicious Prosecution as “the proceedings
which wer ecompalined of which were initiated form a malicious spirit
i.e. from and indeirect and improper motive and not in furtherance of
justice.”
The following essential should be proved for malicious prosecution :

1. Plaintiff proved that he was prosecuted by the defendant

2. The prosecution was instituted without any reasonableness

The defendant acting maliciously the proceedings in the fromer case

terminated in favour of plaintiff of present defendant in former case. The
plaintiff suffered damage due to the prosecution

Prosecution by defendant