Download Moot court that reated to law of tort and more Exercises Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Casebook on Law of Tort
Gloucestor Grammar School case (1410)
Fact:-
The defendant had set up a school rival to that of the plaintiffs with the result that the plaintiffs were required to reduce the rate of tuition fee and suffered substantial loss. Issue:
- Whether the plaintiffs were liable or not?
- Whether the defendant’s act was illegal or not?
Decision:
It was held that the plaintiffs had no remedy at law. Reasoning: Whenever any person does something in exercise of his legal right in a lawful manner without infringing the legal right of another person, that other person cannot complain if he suffers as a consequence of such exercise of legal right. Chesemore v. Richars (1859)
Fact:-
The defendant sank a well a quarter of a mile away from a natural stream and pumped up water for supply to a neighboring town. It diminished the volume of water in the stream. The plaintiff owned a watermill which could not be worked because of the shortage of water level in the river, fed by that stream. Thereupon the plaintiff sued the defendant. Issue:
- Whether the plaintiff had any legal rights or not?
- Whether any legal right of the plaintiff had been violated or not?
Decision:
It was held that the plaintiffs had no remedy at law.
Reasoning: It was held that the plaintiff had not acquired the legal right to use the underground water intercepted by the defendant. Ashby v. White (1703)
Fact:-
The defendant, a returning officer, wrongfully refused to register a duly tendered vote of the plaintiff who was a qualified voter. The candidate for whom the vote was tendered was elected and hence no loss was caused as a consequence of the rejection of vote of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant. It was contended that the action was not maintainable, for the plaintiff had not suffered any actual or pecuniary damage. Issue:
- Whether there is a damage or not?
- Whether there is an injury or not?
Decision:
It was held that the defendant is liable for his refusal to allow the plaintiff to register his vote. Reasoning: In this case, the plaintiff has not suffered any damage on his part, because the candidate for whom the vote was tendered was elected and hence no loss was caused as a consequence of the rejection of vote of the plaintiff. But damage is not a condition of liability in tort. Only injury or legal of violation of right is enough. In this case, the plaintiff had a legal right to vote and that was violated. Holt C.J. overruling this object held: “If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal. Hall v. Brooklands Auto-Racing Club (1983)
Issue:
- Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not?
- Whether the plaintiffs gave their consent or not?
Decision:
It was held that the defendants were not liable. Reasoning:
- There was no negligence on the part of the defendants. Their duty was to see that the course was as free from danger as reasonable care and skill could make it, but they were not insurers against accidents which no reasonable diligence could foresee or against dangers inherent in a sport which any reasonable spectator can foresee and of which he takes the risk.
- There are some defenses to escape from liability in tort. One of them is consent of the plaintiff. In this case plaintiff gave their consent impliedly. Harm suffered voluntarily is not actionable injury. Cleghorn v. Oldham (1876)
Fact:-
The plaintiff, Jeanie Cameron Cleghorn claimed damages against the defendant Cicely Mary Oldham, for personal injuries caused by defendant’s negligence. The plaintiff was a spectator at a golf course. The defendant, who was demonstrating a stroke to the plaintiff’s brother, struck the plaintiff in the face with the gold club. Issue:
- Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not?
- Whether the injury is incidental or due to the negligence of the defendant?
- Whether the plaintiffs gave their consent or not?
Decision:
The jury found that the defendant was negligent and, therefore, was held liable. Reasoning:
- In this case the injury occurred due to the negligence of the defendant.
- The personal injury of the plaintiff occurs due to the negligent act not incidental.
- The plaintiff gave his consent to take a risk which is reasonable. But he was not prepared to take a risk for a negligent work and therefore in this case consent is not a defense. Smith v. Baker (1891)
Fact:-
The plaintiff was employed as a workman in the stone quarry of the defendant, and worked there for some months, with full knowledge of the fact that he was exposed to danger by reason of the negligent practice, prevailing in the quarry, of swinging stones over the quarrymen’s heads by means of a crane. The plaintiff was injured by the fall of a stone, and in consequence sued the defendant. Issue:
- Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not?
- Whether the plaintiff gave his consent or not?
Decision:
It was held that, mere knowledge on his part would not prevent the plaintiff from recovering damages. Reasoning: Lord Halsbury held that the plaintiff did not even know of the particular operation that was being performed over his head until the injury happened to him and therefore, consent was out of question. Mohr v. Williams
Reasoning: In this case the defendant gave her consent only for the right ear not for the left ear. Consent must be given to the precise invasion or at least substantially the same invasion which has been suffered by the plaintiff. Nicholes v. Marseland (1876)
Fact:-
The defendant had constructed some artificial lakes on his land by damning up a natural stream. Due to extra ordinary rainfall of unprecedented violence the stream and lakes swelled to such an extent that ultimately artificial banks burst and some of the bridges were carried away by the rush of escaping water. Issue:
1. Whether there is an act of negligence or not? 2. Whether the predominant cause is natural force or human act?
Decision:
It was held that the defendant was not liable. Reasoning: It is clear that the defendant could not have reasonably anticipated such an extra ordinary rainfall and on this finding the court held that, there was no liability inasmuch as the water escaped by an act of God, which is a defense in tort. Mahindra Nath Mukherjee v. Mathuradas Chaturbhuj (1946)
Fact:-
The defendant was the proprietor of a motion picture exhibition establishment called the Rupali cinema. On the roof
of the building there was a skysign which was a more or less permanent structure held firmly in a place in an upstanding position. It was 12 feet high and 25 feet wide. On this framework firmly attached to it in vertical position there was a galvanized iron sheeting which covered the whole of the framework. The banners were displayed from the sky-sign. These banners were held against the galvanised sheeting by means of cheap coir ropes. One day one of the banners ( feet high and 3-1/2 feet wide) fell from its position against the sky sign. The wooden frame of the banner struck the plaintiff on his head. Issue: Whether there is a negligence on the part of the defendant or not? Whether the act is caused due to natural force or human act?
Decision:
The defendant was held liable. Reasoning: As to the defense of act of God the court held:- “An Act of God is an operation of natural force so unexpected that no human foresight or skill could reasonably be expected to anticipate it. In the town of Calcutta during the monsoon season stormy weather is not unusual and storms of considerable severity are by no means unprecedented. Wind velocities of from 31 to 48 miles per hour are sometimes experienced in Calcutta and gusts from 28 to 33 miles per hour are not uncommon in monsoon season. Therefore, a gust of wind with a velocity of less than 27 miles per hour in the town of Calcutta during the monsoon season cannot be said to be so unexpected that on human foresight could reasonably be expected to anticipate it, and cannot be regarded as vis major or act of God.” Kirk v. Gregory (1876)
Fact:-
X died in a state of delirium tre mens. While his servants were feasting and drinking, X’s sister-in-law (Brother’s wife)
Att. Gen. v. Nottingham Corporation (1904)
Fact:-
The corporation proposed to use a building as small pox hospital in a populated area. As a result, it causes a damage of infection to people living nearby. The defendant was sued for nuisance. Issue: Whether there is a nuisance on the part of the defendant or not? Whether there is any statutory authority in favor of the defendant’s act?
Decision:
The defendant was held liable for nuisance. Reasoning:
1. In this case, erecting a small pox hospital in a populous locality by the defendant was an act of nuisance because it spread danger of small pox among the people living nearby. 2. The defendant’s act was not a statutory authority. However erecting a small pox hospital was his legal right, he was not supposed to erect it wherever he liked, so, the defendant was held liable for nuisance. Cole v. Turner (1705)
Fact:-
The plaintiff and the defendant meet in a narrow passage and without any violence or design of harm, they one touches the other gently. The defendant applied force on the plaintiff and it was very trivial. The force did not cause any harm, the wrong was still constituted. It was not caused physical harm. Issue:
Whether touching gently without any intention to harm is battery or not?
Decision:
The defendant was not held liable for battery. Reasoning: In order to constitute the tort of battery, it is essential that the plaintiff should be conscious of the conduct at the time it occurs. Interest in personal integrity is in any case, entitled to protection, although the plaintiff is asleep. So, when two persons touch each other gently it will not be treated as a battery. Stanley v. Powell (1891)
Fact:-
The defendant, who was a member of a shooting party, fired at a pheasant. One of the pellets from his gun glanced off the branch of the tree and wounded the plaintiff who was engaged in carrying. Issue: Whether there is negligence on the part of the defendant or not?
Decision:
It was held that the defendant was not liable. Reasoning:
- The defendant fired to the pheasant not to the plaintiff and he has not an intention to injure the plaintiff. Glancing off the branch of the tree is an inevitable accident. So, he was not be held liable.
- The defendant didn’t fire negligently. Escaping the pellet was not due to his negligence but merely for an inevitable accident. (The ratio decidendi in this case has been criticised as erroneous, though the decision itself can be supported on the ground of volenti non fit injuria).
- Whether the act done by the defendant was dangerous or not?
- Whether the defendant had duty not to do so?
- Whether the defendant could take defense of the victim being trespasser? Decision: The defendant was held liable. Reasoning: Fixing up a naked wire across the passage the passage to prevent ingress of any person in the latrine of the defendant was definitely dangerous and he must have had duty not to occupy such dangerous way. But occupying such dangerous means to injure the trespasser, he breaches his duty. Though the victim was a trespasser but where defendant causes such a dangerous act intentionally, he should be liable because one cannot be allowed to create danger with a deliberate intention to injure a trespasser. Blake v. Barnard (1840)
Fact:-
The defendant who was the captain of the ship went into his cabin and brought out a pistol and pointed at the plaintiff’s head saying that if the plaintiff were not quiet he would blow his brains out. Issue: Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of harm or not? Whether there is an immediacy of committing a harm or not? Whether there is an assault or not?
Decision:
It was held that the defendant was liable.
- The defendant pointed at the head of the plaintiff is a reasonable apprehension of committing a battery.
- The defendant when points his pistol at the head of the plaintiff, there is an immediate possibility to be committed a battery to the plaintiff.
- As in this case there is reasonable apprehension of immediate battery to the plaintiff it was an assault and the defendant was held liable for assault. Reasoning: But if the person, who threatens to shoot, is at such a distance that the bullet cannot reach the plaintiff there is no assault. Bird v. Jones (1845)
Fact:-
The defendants had wrongfully enclosed a part of the public footway on a bridge, put seats in it for the spectators of a regatta on the river and charged for admission to the enclosure. The plaintiff insisted on passing along the enclosed part of the footpath and climbed over the fence of the enclosure without paying the charge. The defendant refused to let him go and told that he might go back into the carriage way and cross the other side if he wished. The plaintiff declined to go back and remained there for about half an hour. Issue: Whether the plaintiff confined wrongfully or not? Whether the confinement was complete or partial?
Decision:
The defendants were held not liable. Reasoning:
- The plaintiff was not imprisoned wrongfully. He merely excluded from entering into the enclosure. So, the defendant is not liable.
- Although the defendant enclosed the footway it was not complete but merely partial. Mere partial restraint, however inconvenient may be, cannot be actionable. Herring v. Boyle (1834)
Fact:-
The Court held that in the circumstances of the case Bhura and Ganpat were holding the cattle as agents of the plaintiff without acquiring any right in them, and the plaintiff was entitled to sue for trespass inspite of the fact that he was not in immediate possession ot the cattle. Khan Mohammed v. State of Rajasthan (1967)
Fact:-
The plaintiff was granted a contract for preparing Katha from a forest. After the termination of contract, the plaintiff again prepared Katha which was seized by the State and agreed to release it if the plaintiff paid market price of Katha and also penalty and royalty. The plaintiff paid market price of Katha and also penalty and proceedings were not taken in accordance with the provisions of Mewar Forest Act. Issue:
- Were the proceedings brought according to provision of the forest Act?
- Was the plaintiff a true owner?
- Was not the plaintiff a trespasser?
Decision:
The court held that the plaintiff could not claim any property in Katha. Reasoning: The Court held although proceedings were not brought according to provision of the Forest Act yet the plaintiff being a trespasser could not claim any property in Katha against true owners, namely, the State. Meering v. Graham White aviation Co. Ltd. (1920)
Fact:-
English court of Appeal held that the tort of false imprisonment could be committed even if the plaintiff did not know that he was being detained. In this case the plaintiff was suspected of stealing a keg of varnish from his employer’s workshop. He was asked to wait in the waiting room and while
he was there the policemen remained outside. When sued for false imprisonment the defendant contended that the plaintiff was perfectly fee to go wherever he liked, that he knew it and did not desire to go away. Issue:
- Did the plaintiff know about his wrongful confinement?
- Was there total restraint on the part of the plaintiff?
Decision:
The Court rejected these contentions and held the defendant liable. Reasoning: Though the plaintiff had no knowledge about his confinement, yet the wrong was committed by the defendant. Another reason is there was total restraint on the part of the plaintiff. Entick v. Grahame White Aviation Co. (1765) Fact: The defendant had entered into the land of plaintiff, without causing any kind of harm or damage he came back. But the plaintiff filed a suit against him for trespass. Issues:
- Whether the entry was wrongful or not?
- Whether the plaintiff had possession or not?
- Whether any actual damage needed to be trespass? Decision: The defendant was held liable. Reasoning: Only wrongful entry is enough for trespass. As the plaintiff was in possession of the land and the defendant on it without any lawful authority given by law or the owner he was liable for trespass to land though on damage was caused, he coure no actual damage is needed to prove one trespasser.
Decision: The defendant was held liable. Reasoning: The defendant entered the land without any lawful authority or permission of the plaintiff. So his entry was unlawful and the plaintiff’s possession was unlawful as the lease was void. But the defendant was held liable because to prove trespass. Only possession is enough whether it is lawful or unlawful is immaterial. Six Carpenter’s Case (1610)
Fact:-
The proprietor of an inn brought an action for trespass against six carpenters, who having entered the inn, ordered a quart of wine, drank it, and refused to pay for it. The plaintiff sued for damages. Issues:
- Whether in such circumstances, their failure to pay for the wine could be treated as a misfeasance, which would make their original entry into the inn unlawful as a trespass. Decision: The defendant was held not liable. Reasoning: It was observed that, “not doing cannot make the party who has authority or license by the law, a trespasser ab initio, because not doing is no trespass... So, in the case at Bar, for the denying to pay for it is no trespass, and therefore, they cannot be trespassers ab initio. Elias v. Pasmore (1934) Fact: In order to arrest a person, the defendants, being police- officers, entered the plaintiff’s premises. While there, they seized and carried away documents found on the premises. Amongst the documents, there were some which constituted evidence on the trial of the person arrested, but there were
others which did not so constitute, and were subsequently returned. The plaintiff took an action for trespass ab initio. Issues:
- Whether the entry of the defendants was unlawful
- Whether enter ground of entry was abused;
- Whether the entry would amount trespass ab initio for abusing not the enter ground of such entry? Decision: The defendants were not held liable for trespass ab initio. Reasoning: It was held that the defendants were only trespassers ab initio as to the documents that were seized and returned, but were not liable for any damages in respect of the entry on the premises for the purpose of arrest. Thomson v. Gibson (1839) Fact: The defendant built a wall on the land, occupied by the plaintiff that causes obstruction to access of the plaintiff to his house on market. Issues:
- Whether the defendant will be liable for trespass or not?
- Whether the plaintiff has suffered from damage or not?
Decision:
The defendant was held liable for trespass. Reasoning: When a person wrongfully put or erects something on other’s land, it is directly a trespass. If that other suffers any danger is immaterial question. Youssoupoff v. Metro Pictures (1934)
Fact:-
