A CASEBOOK

ON LAW
OF
TORTS

Major Case Laws Simplified

Especially for First Year
Law Students
Law of Torts is one of the first legal subjects that first year
law students are introduced to. In the absence of any
statutory law, case laws become the imperative in the
study of Law of Torts.

In this Case Book, 11 Major Case Laws have been provided

in the Legal Principle- Explanation- Facts- Disposition-
Held format to make it easier for our students to
understand, comprehend and remember.

Furthermore, a set of revision questions have been

provided for you to practice and polish your learnings here.

Happy Learning!

Disclaimer: This casebook is meant to serve as study material in

addition to the coursework prescribed by your college.

Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd

Contents:

Introduction to Law of Torts................................................................................................................. 2

Gloucester Grammar School vs. Rival School Teacher ((1411), Y. B. 11 Hen. 4, f. 47, pi. 19) ............ 4
Ashby v White- MANU/INOT/0001/1703 ............................................................................................ 6

Ilott v Wikes MANU/INOT/0001/1820 ................................................................................................. 7

United Provinces vs. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram- MANU/UP/0298/1960 .................................................. 8

Two aspects to Vicarious Liability: ................................................................................................ 8

Vicarious Liability Justifications: ................................................................................................... 8

Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors.
MANU/SC/1255/2011 ......................................................................................................................... 11
Donoghue v. Stevenson- MANU/UKHL/0001/1932 ......................................................................... 13
Lord Atkin's neighbour principle: ............................................................................................... 13

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman MANU/UKHL/0014/1990 ............................................................. 15

Rey vs. Williams MANU/UKCR/0002/1983 ........................................................................................ 18
Smith v. London and South Western Railway Company MANU/INOT/0001/1854 ........................ 19
M.C. Mehta and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (17.02.1986) MANU/SC/0092/1986 ......... 21
Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India MANU/MP/0300/1988 ........................................... 24

Revision Questions.............................................................................................................................. 28
Conclusion – Law of Torts .................................................................................................................. 29

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Introduction to Law of Torts

 What is Tort Law?

Tort Law is the branch of common law which deals with civil wrong, civil rights; its
infringement, remedies, damages and defenses. Various categories of injuries such as
harm done to body, property, image (defamation), money, goods, documents etc. are
covered under this law from civil perspective. Remedy under tort law is generally in the
form of unliquidated damages or specific performance.

 Origin of Tort Law

The word “tort” is derived from a Latin word “tortus” which means wrong or twisted or
crooked. Tort Law made its way to India through English Common Law.

 Why Tort Law is part of first year curriculum of law school?

Every individual living in a societal paradigm has certain rights and duties. It is vital for
the aspiring law students to engage with tort law because this subject acts as a base for
understanding different types of wrongs, and how people are held accountable for their
wrongs. It enshrines various types of legal rights and wrongs related to property, body,
image(defamation) and so on, helping a student to understand different branches or
areas in a society which can be looked in a nuanced way f as you progress further in
your study of law

 Types of Torts

There are two types of torts Intentional Tort and Negligent Tort. As the name suggests,
in Intentional Torts, the tortfeasor causes the injury or does the civil wrong intentionally;
and in Negligent Torts the tortfeasor fails to act or omit certain act which leads to
breach of certain duty of care towards the affected or injured person, or the one who
has suffered a legal injury.

 Basic Jargons of Tort Law

1. Tort – A wrongful act or breach of right (except for contractual breach)
2. Tortfeasor – A person who has committed the tort.
3. Public Wrong – Tort committed against a community or people at large, which
hampers the public interest.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

 4. Private Wrong – Tort or civil wrong against an individual.

 Essential Elements of Tort Law

Every case and issue under tort law revolves around three elements:

1. A wrongful Act or Omission

2. Presence of Legal Right which will lead to Legal remedy
3. Legal damage

The below cases in the ebook have been chosen to highlight one or the other important
tort principles. These cases will be an interesting way to develop application of the black
letters of the law of torts.

 The important cases of tort law discussed along with their corresponding concepts in
this casebook are –
1. Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India – Absolute Liability
2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy &
Ors. – Strict Liability, Absolute Liability, Contributory Negligence
3. MC Mehta v. Union of India – Absolute Liability
4. Gloucester Grammar Case – Damnum Sine Injuria
5. Ashby v. White – Injuria Sine Damno
6. Illot v. Wikes – Volenti Non Fit Injuria
7. Rey v. Williams - Volenti Non Fit Injuria
8. Smith v. London and South Western Railway Company – Remoteness of
Damage, Proximity
9. Kasturi Ralia Ram v. State of U.P – Vicarious Liability, Negligence
10. Donoghue v. Stevenson – Negligence, Neighbor Principle

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Gloucester Grammar School vs. Rival School Teacher ((1411), Y. B. 11 Hen. 4, f. 47,
pi. 19)

Legal Principle – Damnum Sine Injuria

Explanation – Damnum Sine Injuria (Damage without Injury) is the tort principle in
which the damage has been suffered but there is no infringement of legal right i.e.,
there is no injury caused. Under this principle, since there is no infringement of legal
right, the case doesn’t get enforced in the court of law and damages cannot be claimed
as well. Damage can be of any form such as damage to one’s money, image, health,
property etc. and injury means infringement of one’s legal rights. The takeaway of this
principle is that if one is exercising their rights without causing legal injury to others
then tortuous liability won’t arise.

To understand this concept, let us look at the Gloucester Grammar case-

Facts- In the Gloucester school, there was a teacher who left the schoolafter sometime
due to an internal conflict. Due to rivalry he opened his own school in front of
Gloucester Grammar Case and reduced his fee as compared to Gloucester Grammar
School. He made it 12 pence and Gloucester school charged 40 pence, this was done to
entice students to take admission in his school and already existing students to leave
the Gloucester school and join his own. The new school got new admissions due to
simplified teaching and low fee and students of Gloucester school also left and joined
the new one resulting in high monetary loss to Gloucester. The plaintiff filed a case
against the rival school teacher for trespassing and asked for compensation for
monetary loss caused because of opening of new school in same area where Gloucester
school was situated.

Issue –

 Whether plaintiff’s rights have been infringed and should plaintiff get damages for
the monetary loss suffered by opening of new school?
 Whether principle of Damnum Sine injuria applies here?

Contention –

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant opened the school to take revenge and it
caused monetary loss which is morally wrong.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Disposition: In the favor of the Defendant

Held- Any moral, religious, or social wrong would not count law of torts unless there is
an infringement of legal right which will generate cause of action under torts. Here,
defendant’s act did not cause any legal injury but only damages were caused in the
form of monetary loss. Thus, as per Damnum Sine Injuria, defendant is not liable to pay
any compensation and every individual has right to carry on any profession, business
and employment as long as it is legal and not infringing any person’s legal rights. No
legal remedy is available for loss due to competition.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Ashby v White- MANU/INOT/0001/1703

Read the Judgment Here: www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/Matthew-Ashby-v-William-White-

and-Ors.pdf

Legal Principle – Injuria Sine Damnum

Explanation – Injuria Sine Damnum is the legal principle where one’s legal right is
infringed and although legal injury is caused, there is no any physical injury. Only the
violation which creates actionable cause of action, even though there is no visible loss of
the sufferer is a tortuous wrong.

Facts – In this case even though the plaintiff Ashby was a qualified voter and was giving
vote at parliamentary election the defendant (White) refused to register his vote. The
voter was eligible to vote and his vote was in the favour of winning party only.

Disposition- In the favor of the Plaintiff.

Held- It was held that since the vote was in the favour of winning party, there was no
actual loss suffered by him by his legal right i.e., his voting right was infringed and this
was a civil wrong committed by the defendant. Thus, he should get the damages.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Ilott v Wikes MANU/INOT/0001/1820

Read the Judgment Here: www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/Ilott-v-Wilkes.pdf

Legal Concept – Volenti non fit Injuria

Explanation – If a person willingly and knowingly accepts to take risk, in an expressed

or implied manner which results in an injury then the injury caused will be considered to
be suffered voluntarily. It will be considered that the injury caused was consensual.
There won’t be any breach of legal rights in that caseand such injury won’t be actionable
under torts. Elements of Volenti Non fir injuria are-

 “Knowledge of Risk”
 “Free Consent”
 “Consent to illegal act” – cannot be given (R v. Donovan)
 “Consent of minors or insane persons”
 “Breach of Statutory duty”

To understand this principle let us look at the case Illot v. Wikes (1820) 3 B & Ald 304.

Facts –

In this case, , the defendant had put spring guns in a wood on his ground to protect the
game. The plaintiff had full knowledge about placement of spring guns he trespassed
on the defendant’s land and got injured.

Disposition- In the favor of the Defendant

Held- On a plaintiff's suit, the court determined that, while the defendant had exceeded
his right of private defense, he was not liable because the plaintiff took the risk of
trespassing despite knowing that the spring gun was placed on defendant's land. The
court observed that he had purposefully courted the danger. Thus this case fell within
the maxim ‘volenti non fit injuria’.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

United Provinces vs. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram- MANU/UP/0298/1960

Read the Judgment Here: www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/United-Province-v-Kasturi-Lal.pdf

Legal Principle – Vicarious Liability, Negligence

Explanation- Vicarious Liability occurs when the said individuals or entities have among
them a special relationship. Winfield states that this relationship must be a relationship
arising out of a contract of service and tort in question must be done by the employee
in the course of employment.

Two aspects to Vicarious Liability:

1. A relationship arising out of a contract of service (act done by 'servant')
2. The tort must be related to the said relationship (in course of employment)

Vicarious Liability Justifications:

1. Failure of the employer in selecting 'A' for the task or continuing to keep him in
employment
2. The employer has not given adequate consideration to a safe working condition
3. The employer must be held liable for breach of a "non-delegable duty" - he is
liable for the actions of those carrying out the action.

Facts - Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain was a partner in the appellant's firm and dealt with the
sale of jewellery in Amritsar. He arrived in Meerut with the intention of selling gold and
silver.Three police officers arrested him on suspicion of possessing stolen property. Gold
weighing (Meerut weight) 103 tolas and 1 ratti, and silver weighing 2 maunds and
6 seers were seized from him and were kept in the police malkhana. Kasturi Lal was
released on bail a few days later, on September 21, 1947, and after some time, only the
silver that had been seized by police officers and kept in the maalkhana was returned to
him, not the gold. Then Kasturi Lal made numerous requests and demands for the
return of the gold that had been seized from him, but he was unable to recover the gold
from the police officers.

After being unsuccessful in obtaining the gold, he filed a suit against the respondent,
requesting that the items seized from him be either returned to him or the value of the
items ordered to be paid to him with interest. His claim thus consisted of Rs.11,075-10-
0? as gold price and Rs. 355 as interest by way of damages as well as future interest. The

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

respondent objected to the claim, claiming that they were not required to return the
gold or pay the value of the gold with interest. Respondent claimed that on October 17,
1947, Mohammad Aamir, the head constable, went to Pakistan with gold and other cash
that he had stolen. Police attempted to take action against Mohammed Amir, but
despite their best efforts, nothing effective could be done. As a result, the respondent
claimed that they could not be held accountable.

Trial court on the basis of above facts and circumstances held that the UP Government
being the employer of the police officers are vicariously liable for negligence. To this,
appeal was made by the U.P. Government.

Issue before HC – Whether the U.P. Government can be held liable to indemnify the
Plaintiff for negligence?

Disposition- In favor of the Respondent

Held- It was held by the High Court that the police officers were negligent, but the
government is not. Reliance was placed on two precedents - Ram Ghulam v.
Government of U.P. MANU/UP/0079/1950 in which it was held that

“The rule embodied in the maxim Respondent superior is subject to the well
recognised exception that a master is not liable for the acts of his servants
performed in discharge of a duty imposed by law. Authority for this proposition is
to be found in Viscount Canterburry v. Queen (1843) 4 StTr NS 767, Tobin v. The
Queen (1864) 16 CB (NS) 310 , 33 LJ PC 199 and Shivabhajan Durgaprasad v. The
Secy of State 28 Bom 314 : 6 Bom. LR 65.”

Second case relied upon is Mohammad Murad Ibrahim Khan and Ors. vs. Govt. of U.P. of
Agra and Oudh (24.08.1955 - ALLHC) MANU/UP/0029/1956 ( Read the Judgment Here:
https://bit.ly/3G1BMO9 ), where it was held that –

“But where the servant acts in performance of the duties imposed upon him by
law, the master has no right to control him nor to give him any instructions. He is
obeying the law and not the master and naturally the master should not be held
liable for anything which the servant does while carrying out the aforesaid
duties.”

Keeping these two ratios in mind, the HC held that since the police officers were not
acting as servants of the government, but discharging their duties in their own capacity

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

and responsibility, then even though the government is employer, won’t be held liable
for negligence and won’t be required to indemnify the loss.

Key takeaway – Scope of employment during any course of action, determines if the
employer is vicariously liable or not.
Gives employers a pretty strong incentive to minimize risk for their actions.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy
& Ors. MANU/SC/1255/2011

Read the Judgment Here: www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/Uphaar-Tragedy-Case.pdf

Legal Principles – Strict Liability, Absolute Liability, Contributory Negligence

Facts – This is an appeal in SC based on the facts that in 1997, there was a tragedy
caused when the transformer installed by Delhi Vidyut Board (“DVB”) in the parking area
of Uphaar Cinema caught fire. The oil was leaked from the transformer and entered the
parking area and then led to burning of cars. This burning of transformer led to burning
of cars, petrol, paints stored in parking lot generated huge amount of fumes and smoke
containing carbon monoxide and many poisonous gases. Smoke reached the
auditorium and electricity went off making exit signs disabled which led to death of 59
persons in the balcony and 103 patrons were injured. There was only one exit and the
staircase and the exit was not easy to reach, plus it was filled with fumes.

High Court – Held the theatre owner, MCD, license authority and DVB liable for
negligence as follows –

 DVB was negligent and violated provisions of electricity act and rules by not
taking approval for installing transformer by electricity inspector. As per rules, the
floor of the transformer room should have been on higher ground as compared
to surrounding there should be proper channel for the gas to not leak outside
and HC claimed that DVB did not maintain transformers, which is the root cause
of the accident.
 Poor parking plan, no proper exits, reduced width of passages, and illegal
construction of parapet wall for commercial use making the parking area closed
area, this was complimentary to DVB’s negligence and thus it did not let the
fumes out and caused the accident, making the owners negligent.
 MCD failed to point out violation of building by laws w.r.t. 12 ft. parapet wall. No
proper inspection, thus negligence on part of MCD.
 The license authority owed duty to cross check and ensure that the theatre met
the requirements of the Cinematograph act, but it failed to point out the
violations, thus negligence on the part of license authority in discharging
statutory duty.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

HC Held – Theatre owner, MCD, DVB and license authority to be jointly and severally
liable and directed compensation to each party accordingly.

DVB accepted the HC judgment and compensated as directed but the owner, MCD and
licensing authority filed the appeals.

Issue before the SC

“(i) Whether MCD and Licensing Authority could be made liable to pay compensation to
the victims?

(ii) What should be apportionment of liability?

(iii) Whether compensation awarded is excessive?

(iv) Whether award of punitive damages of Rs. 2.5 crores against the Licensee was
justified?”

Disposition: In favor of the Appellant

Held: In the appeal (present case) SC held that it’s not proper to ask for damages from
public authorities merely on basis of some inaction in performing their statutory duties
because there was no presence of “malice” and it was not a “conscious abuse”. Cases of
direct negligence, strict liability or absolute liability cannot be applied in this case
against MCD or licensing authority. They were not owners of the hall and their actions or
omissions were not proximate cause of the injury and deaths. Owner and the DVB were
held liable because their omissions had a proximate cause and they were liable for
contributory negligence.

Here the important elements are presence of malice and proximity of cause

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Donoghue v. Stevenson- MANU/UKHL/0001/1932

Read the Judgment Here: www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/MALISTER-or-DONOGHUE-Pauper-

vs-STEVENSON.pdf

Legal Principle – Negligence (Duty of Care) and Neighbor Principle

Explanation- There exists three elements to the concept of Negligence –

1. Duty of Care
2. Breach of duty of Care
3. Non Remote damage caused by the breach

For a person to be held liable under tort of Negligence, there has to be presence of
legal duty of care on the shoulders of the claimant.

Neighbor Principle was established in Donoghue v Stevenson to determine duty of care

based on “proximity” with the Claimant.

Facts - Mrs. Donoghue's friend bought her a ginger-beer from Wellmeadow Café in
Paisley. The beer was served by the retailer in a dark opaque glass; she consumed about
half of the bottle, when the remainder of the contents was poured into a tumbler. At
this point, the decomposed remains of a snail floated out causing her alleged shock and
severe gastro-enteritis.

Issue- Whether the manufacturer owed duty of care towards Mrs. Donoghue, when
there was no direct contractual relation between them?

Disposition- In favor of the Plaintiff

Held- It was held that as per ‘neighbor principle’ defendant was liable for negligence.
Presence of contractual relation is not necessary and the manufacturer owes duty of
care for the ultimate users of its products.

Lord Atkin's neighbour principle:

"The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your
neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply.
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably
foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour?

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act
that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am
directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

After Donoghue v Stevenson came, Anns v Merton London Borough Council (12.05.1977
- UKHL) : MANU/UKHL/0008/1977. This case made the neighbour principle applicable to
all the cases and also gave two folds test to determine the liability,

1. Whether there is a "proximity or neighbourhood" relationship between the

plaintiff and the defendant such that, in the defendant's reasonable opinion,
carelessness on the defendant's part could cause damage to the claimant?
2. Whether there are any factors that would limit or cancel or reduce that duty?

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman MANU/UKHL/0014/1990

Read the Judgment Here:

www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/Caparo_Industries_pIc_v_Dickman_and_Ors.pdf

Legal Principle- Another important case law related to the neighbour principle is
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman because it established the Caparo test also known as
“Tripartite Test”

Facts - A firm of accountants filed an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision holding
that the accountants owed a duty of care to the appellant shareholders when preparing
an audit report required by statute. The claim was for negligent misrepresentation.
Caparo had purchased shares in the company mentioned in the report as part of a
takeover. The appellant had relied on the report's findings. However, it was later
discovered that the report's findings had misrepresented the firm's profits, resulting in a
loss for Caparo.

Disposition- In favor of the Respondent

Held- The auditors' only duty of care was towards the firm's governance and not
existing or potential shareholders. Thus, the 'tripartite' test or “Caparo test” was also
established which highlighted three elements–

1- Foreseeability
2- Proximity
3- Fair, Just and Reasonable

Element Understanding Case Law

Foreseeability It is simply M. Mayi Gowda vs. State of Karnataka

determining whether and Ors. (27.11.1995 - SCDRC
it was reasonably Karnataka) : MANU/SP/0062/1995 (Read
foreseeable that a the Judgment Here:
negligent act on the www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/M-Mayi-
part of the defendant Gowda-vs-State-of-Karnataka-and-Ors.pdf
would result in harm )
to the plaintiff.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

 Three tests to satisfy
this element of
Foreseeability are –
1- Is the plaintiff
foreseeable?
2- Is the claimant
part of the
class which
could be
harmed, if the
defendant acts
negligently?
3- Test should be
objective-
From the
standpoint of a
reasonable
man. It is not
enough to
argue that the
duty does not
exist because
the defendant
did not foresee
the damage.
Proximity Closely related to the Sutradhar v National Environment
concept of neighbour Research Council
principle i.e., would And
include all potential Donoghue v Stevenson Read the
people who could be Judgment Here:
affected by www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/MALISTER-
defendant’s or-DONOGHUE-Pauper-vs-STEVENSON.pdf
negligence in a
‘proximate’ way.
‘Fai, Just and Whether the duty of Marc Rich and Co. A.G. vs. Bishop Rock
Reasonable’ care imposed is fair, Marine Co. Ltd. (03.02.1994 - UKWA) :
just and reasonable? MANU/UKWA/0041/1994
Read the Judgment Here:
www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/Marc-
Rich-and-Co-AG-vs-Bishop-Rock-Marine-Co-

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

 Ltd.pdf)

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Rey vs. Williams MANU/UKCR/0002/1983

Read the Judgment Here: www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/Williams-v-R.pdf

Legal Principle – Volenti non fit injuria – Consent obtained by fraud

Explanation- Volenti non fit injuria - the defence in which if one consents wilfully in
direct or implied way for the risk then he or she cannot ask for damage. One of the
essentials of this principle is free consent i.e. consent without any concealment of facts.
If the consent is obtained by way of fraud then that consent would be considered
invalid. And defence of volenti non fit injuria won’t be granted.

Facts of the case – There was a music teacher who took fraudulent consent from a
sixteen year old girl (his student) for having sexual intercourse with him. He told the girl
that if she induldges in that act, her vocal cord will improve and she will be able to sing
better so she agreed for the same.

Disposition- In favour of the Plaintiff

Held- Here the defendant won’t get the defence of volenti non fit injuria because the
consent was vitiated due to lack of knowledge of the correct facts. The plaintiff got the
damages and charges for rape applied on the defendant.

For the defence of volenti non fit injuria to be applied consent should be free and the
person giving consent should clearly know all the correct facts.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Smith v. London and South Western Railway Company MANU/INOT/0001/1854

Read the Judgment Here: www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/Smith-v-London-and-South-

Western-Railway-Company.pdf

Legal Principle – Proximity or remoteness of Damage (Test of Directness)

Explanation – There are two tests of remoteness –

1. Test of Reasonable Foresight

2. Test of Directness – As per this test a person would be liable for all direct actions
or consequences of his or her act. Considering the Foreseeability irrelevant.

This test was applied in the given case of Smith v. London and South Western Railway
Company

Facts of the case – Railway company’s workmen trimmed grass and hedges and placed
the trimmings near the railway line in heaps. The heap of trimmings sat there for
fourteen days unattended, in the month of August (very hot weather). When an engine
was passing, its fire ignited the heap and burnt the hedges. This burnt trimming was
then led by the wind across the stubble field and a public road, which burnt the
plaintiff’s goods in a cottage (200 yards away).

Issue- Whether the Railway Company was negligent?

Disposition- In the favour of the Plaintiff

Held- Test of directness was applied and it was held that it was Railway Company who
was negligent and thus the railway compound caught fire. Here since the fire caught
goods of the plaintiff was direct result of negligence of railway company, Foreseeability
was not considered.

In the case, Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Company
Ltd (18.01.1961 - UKPC) : MANU/UKPC/0001/1961(Read the Judgment Here:
www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/Overseas_Tankship_UK_Ltd_v_Morts_Dock_and_Engineer.pdf)
popularly known as the Wagon Mound Case, the test of directness was quashed by the
Privy Council and considered irrelevant and the test of reasonable foresight gained
authority. Some important lines from the judgment -

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

 “In the case Lord Viscound Simonds observed:

“It does not seem consonant with current ideas of justice or morality that, for an
act of negligence, … the actor should be liable for all consequences, however
unforeseeable.”

They also maintained that “according to the principles of civil liability, a man must
be considered to be responsible only for the probable consequences of his act”.”

It was upheld that damage that can be foreseen by the reasonable person would be
considered and a person cannot be held liable for infinity of damages.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

M.C. Mehta and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (17.02.1986)
MANU/SC/0092/1986
Read the Judgment Here: www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/MC-Mehta-and-Ors-vs-Union-of-
India-UOI-and-Ors.pdf

Legal Principle – Absolute Liability

Rylands v. Fletcher MANU/UKHL/0002/1868 (Read the Judgment Here:

www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/John-Rylands-v-Thomas-Fletcher.pdf) for the rule of strict
liability has also been referred because this case establishes that no exceptions given
under strict liability would be provided in absolute liability and that is the point of
difference between Strict Liability and absolute liability.

Facts – On 4th and 6th December 1985, there was escape of oleum gas from the shriram
industries and many people were affected.

Issue – “what is the measure of liability of an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous

or inherently dangerous industry, if by reason of an accident occurring in such industry,
persons die or is injured? Does the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher MANU/UKHL/0002/1868
apply or is there any other principle on which the liability can be determined?”

Disposition- In favor of the Respondent

Held – Direct quotes from the judgment (Important)

“We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the
persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute
and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on
account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has
undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted
with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity,
the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate for such harm and it should be
no answer to the enterprise to say that it had taken all reasonable care and that the
harm occurred without any negligence on its part.

Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to isolate the process of

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or any other related element
that caused the harm must be held strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the
social cost for carrying on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. If the
enterprise is permitted to carry on an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its
profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise
absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its over-heads.

Such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only
on condition that the enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous
or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not.

This principle is also sustainable on the ground that the enterprise alone has the
resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning
against potential hazards.

We would therefore hold that where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or

inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in
the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example,
in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all
those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the
exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule
in Rylands v. Fletcher (supra).

We would also like to point out that the measure of compensation in the kind of cases
referred to in the preceding paragraph must be co-related to the magnitude and
capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deferent effect. The
larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of
compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the
carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise.”

Key Takeaways –

From the important paragraphs mentioned above from the judgment, the key
takeaways are as follows-

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

 An enterprise dealing in hazardous gas or substance will be strictly and
absolutely liable if any harm is caused from the escape of such hazardous
substance.
 The enterprise will be required to compensate all the affected parties.
 Amount of compensation will depend on the prosperity and size of the
enterprise, more capable enterprise will be required to compensate more.
 If an enterprise is dealing in such hazardous substance, it owes a non delegable
duty towards the community and people surrounding, who can get affected.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India MANU/MP/0300/1988

Read the Judgment Here: www.manupatra.in/etc/ebooksNew/Union-Carbide-Corporation-vs-

Union-of-India.pdf

Legal Principle – Absolute Liability (Torts)

Case or precedent heavily relied upon – M.C. Mehta v Union of India, because the
principle of “Absolute Liability” was laid down in this case.

Explanation- The Absolute Liability Principle was applied more strictly in Union Carbide
Case, as the Bhopal tragedy involved escape of ultra hazardous gas called MIC or Methyl
Isocyanate as compared to the escape of oleum gas in M.C. Mehta case.

Facts - On the night of December 2nd and 3rd, 1984, an irreparable industrial dispute
was reported in the city of Bhopal. Union Carbine Corporation (“UCC”) was a corporation
incorporated in the United States of America. It has a subsidiary company called Union
Carbide India Ltd., which manufactures pesticides in one of its units in Bhopal, among
other things. The leakage of methyl isocyanate from this unit was reported, resulting in
the deaths of approximately 3000 people and the permanent disability of approximately
6 lakh people. Multiple lawsuits were filed against UCC in both India and the United
States. The Indian government attempted, but failed, to reach an agreement with the
UCC.

Following that, the GOI enacted the "Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims)
Act, 1985." Section 3 of the Act deals with the fact that it empowered the GOI to
represent every person affected by this tragedy and to act in the place of all such people
who had made or were entitled to make a claim. Then a lawsuit was filed by the GOI in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Several suits
previously filed by American lawyers were also consolidated in a consolidated action
brought about by the GOI. The Union Carbide Corporation argued that this forum is
inconvenient for deciding the suit because the plant employees, the victims, the
documentary evidence, and so on were all located in India. The GOI, on the other hand,
argued that Indian courts had not matured sufficiently to deal with disasters of such
enormous magnitude because they had been subjected to British colonial rule for a long
time.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

After 4 years of proceedings, a settlement was reached between the UCC and the GOI,
and the Supreme Court ordered the UCC to pay a sum of 470 million USD, equivalent to
around 750 crore INR, after taking into account the enormity of the agony suffered by
the victims, the claims and counter claims of both parties, and the evidences produced
before it. The court also ordered the establishment of a full-fledged hospital equipped
to meet the needs of leak victims, as well as the formation of a proper adjudication body
to provide prompt relief to gas tragedy victims.

Important paragraphs from the Union Carbide Judgment to understand how the
absolute liability was applied’ are as follows – [Para 02.16. explains the principle of
Absolute Liability established in the M.C. Mehta Case]

 02.16. The reasoning adopted in M.C. Mehta's case while laying down the rule of
absolute liability without exceptions is as follows: "We are of the view that an
enterprise which is engaged in an hazardous or inherently dangerous industry
which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in
the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-
delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to any one on
account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has
undertaken. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide
that the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must
be conducted with the highest standards of safety and if any harm results on
account of such activity the enterprise must be absolutely liable to compensate
for such harm and it should be no answer to the enterprise to say that it had
taken all reasonable care and that the harm occurred without any negligence on
its part. Since the persons harmed on account of the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity carried on by the enterprise would not be in a position to
isolate the process or operation from the hazardous preparation of substance or
any other related element that caused the harm the enterprise must be held
strictly liable for causing such harm as a part of the social cost for carrying on the
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. If the enterprise is permitted to carry
on the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must
presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost
of any accident arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous
activity as an appropriate item of its overheads. Such hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity for private profit can be tolerated only on condition that the

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

 enterprise engaged in such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
indemnifies all those who suffer on account of the carrying on of such hazardous
or inherently dangerous activity regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or
not. This principle is also sustainable on the ground that the enterprise alone has
the resource to discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide
warning against potential hazards."

Para 02.17. describes how absolute liability principle is applied in the very case.

 02.17. On the basis of the above said reasoning, the rule of absolute liability
without exceptions laid down by the Supreme Court in the said case is as follows:
"Where an enterprise is engaged in an hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of
toxic gas, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensation to all
those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of
the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principles of strict liability
under the rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher, 1861 1 All.E.R. 146 (H.L.).
MANU/UKHL/0002/1868. The measure of compensation in such cases must be
correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such
compensation must have a deterrent effect. The larger and more prosperous the
enterprise the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the
harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or
inherently, dangerous activity by the enterprise."

Disposition- In favor of the Respondent

Held-

"Where enterprise is engaged in hazardous activity and harm results to anyone on

account of accident in operation of such hazardous activity resulting, enterprise is
strictly and absolutely liable to compensation to all those who are affected by
accident."

Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

In the year 1991, Public Liability Insurance Act was enacted which aims at providing
immediate relief to the person affected by an accident caused as a result working of any
enterprise engaged in inherently dangerous and extra hazardous activity.

Key Takeaways from the case-

 Negligence on the part of defendant cannot be established because it is

irrelevant in cases of absolute liability.
 There are no exceptions available in case of absolute liability, unlike strict liability.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Revision Questions

1. What is a tort? State the necessary constituents of a tort.

2. In what respects does a tort differ from a contract and from a crime?

3. Explain the distinction between injury and damage. Which of these are essential in an
action for tort?

4. In what classes of cases, and on what grounds may one person sue and be sued for a
tort committed to and by another ?

5. Under what circumstances is a person employing a contractor liable for the

contractor's wrongful acts?

6. Classify torts according to their nature. Give an instance of each class and show why
such classification is of importance.

7. Enumerate and explain the different forms of trespass to the person.

8. What is the difference between libel and slander? What proofs must be adduced by
the plaintiff to prove his case in a suit for libel, and how may the defendant defend
himself?

9. Distinguish between a private and a public nuisance, and state the facts which the
plaintiff is bound to prove in an action for nuisance.

10. What are the torts relating to the absolute liability? What is Ryland vs Fletcher rule?
What are its exceptions? Is this rule applied in India in present circumstances?

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.

Conclusion – Law of Torts

The most important thing to understand about tort law is underlying principle. That
every person has certain rights and these rights need to be protected.

After reading the case briefs, and various tortuous principles, you would have got clarity

about what are the ways in which these rights are protected. Elements, reasonability and

damages go hand in hand so that legal rights of an individual are protected. After first
year tort law comes into picture at a later stage while preparing for judiciary and other

competitive exams. Tort takes up space in judiciary syllabus because it is engaging with

the whole society and prevalence of justice in different aspects and components of
society.

It is the kind of law which keeps an eye on everybody within a society. For example,

Doctor and Patient relations which has relevance in the medical profession, master and

servant has relevance in formal and informal employment, trespass in someone’s

property, bodily harm, emotional harm, harm to someone’s image (defamation),

negligent behavior, confinement, fraudulent activity, trespass by animal, stealing, and so

on and so forth.

©Copyright with Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt Ltd.