In McGregor ens. (iv) Dickson V. Reuter Telegraph Co. Ch 3-1 Volenti non fit Injuria .. i) Thomas V. Quartermaine ii) Smith V. Baker iii) Dann V. Hamilton iv) Haynes V. Harwood Ch. 3. i) Nitrogliserien geval ii) Bruin V. Kendal iii) Fordon V. 1 Omlischending . i)Fouldes V. Willonby ii) Richards V. Alkinson iii) Armory V. Delamerie iv) Water Co. V. Sharman v) Bridges V. Hawkesworth Ch. 12.. i) Robinson V. Kilvert ii) Gesondheid V. Brigtron iii) Wagon Mound geval iv) Christie V. Davey v) Holly wood Silver Fox V. Emmett vi) Rose V. Miles vii) Solten V. De viii).
INTRODUCTION
1. A tort is a violation of a party's civil or private right. In tort there is a primary legal duty imposed by law, but in quasi-contract there is no such duty.
MOTIVE AND MALICE
In injuria sine damno, there is a remedy available to the plaintiff through the court. Damnum sine Injuria means actual and substantial losses without violation of the legal right.
Richards
Reuter Telegraph Company
It was ruled that the damage was an accidental consequence of the legal act and that the defendant was therefore not liable. Nervous shock is a personal injury to the nerve and brain structure of the body and therefore the damages can be recovered.
Phillips
Downton
Liverpool Corporation
D's tram car, which carelessly collided with the hearse, damaged it and the coffin fell over. Seeing this, the four mourners, who were relatives of the deceased, suffered a nervous shock.
Stokes
STRICT LIABILITY
- Consent of the plaintiff: If the plaintiff has given his con sent the strict liability rule will not apply but 'volenti non-fit injuria'
- Common Benefit : If source of danger is for the common benefit of both the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant is
Page2 8. establishing that the escape was due to some natural cause beyond the control of the defendant. If the injury is due to the plaintiff's default, there is no compensation. In a decided case the plaintiff is then no compensation.. plaintiff teased a Chimpanzee in a zoo and the animal caused injury by biting the hand of the plaintiff.
However, if it can be proven that the defendant had knowledge of the animal's dangerous propensity, the defendant becomes liable under the Scienter Act.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Should the act of the servant be included in any of the above, then only the master becomes liable. Generally, the master is liable for the servant's negligence, mistake and willful wrong. The defendant, the master, was responsible for the negligent act of the driver, since the act was committed during his work.
The act was innocent, but was a negligent act on the part of the servant, and therefore the master was liable.
London General Omni -Bus Company
DEFAMATION
- Imputation of Criminal offences punishable in nature
The statement or words must be: .. ii) Spoken (defamation) or written (defamation) iii) defamation and . iv) published. i) Wrong: The words used must be false. It must be shown that the imputation was false and malicious. ii) The words may be spoken as in defamation or they may be in writing, i.e., in a permanent form as in defamation. The test is whether the words used tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society at large (Winfield).
The court ruled that the words did not amount to an attribution of a criminal offense.
Adams
Imputation of unfitness, dishonesty or inefficiency in a profession trade or business. Imputation of ignorance of law to a
Plaintiff advertised in newspapers as a specialist in E.N.T. The defendant commented on him as "a quack of the highest order". Held: that it was a comment, the Court always looks at the justification of the comments. In the case of defamation, one issue that may arise for consideration is the actual meaning of the words used.
It is for this reason that the court invokes the concept of Innuendo, i.e. to find the inner meaning of the words used by the author of defamatory words.
ASSAULT AND
BATTERY
When a person standing on a Railway platform shows his fist to the plaintiff who is in moving train, there is no assault. But because of the good humor of mankind they do not go to the courts. For Assault and Battery the following defenses are open to the defendant. i) Self-defence.
This is a good defense for the suspect. v) Legal Arrest or Search: Under the law, the police officer has the power to arrest any person or search any premises and in such circumstances he may use such force as is necessary under the law. iv) Force used under authority: parents, guardians, supervisors of trainees, captain of the ship etc.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND MALCIOUS PROSECUTION
There must be lack of reasonable and probable cause. In
If the purpose of the defendant is vindictive or to destroy the name of a person or. Merely because there was an acquittal, the plaintiff will not succeed in a case for Malicious Prosecution. The plaintiff must allege and prove that there was no reasonable or probable cause to prosecute the plaintiff.
The defendant must prove that he had reasonable grounds for detaining the plaintiff (Herd V. Steel Co., Robinson V. Balmain ferry Co.).
Newdegate
DECEIT
Deceit
It was stated in the prospectus that the debenture money was to be used for the purchase of vans. These must be made with knowledge that the statement is false, or the statement must be made with carelessness.
Peek: A company was running trams using animals
CONVERSION
- Taking possession
- Abusing Possession
Conversion is any act in relation to the goods of a person which involves an unjustified denial of his right of ownership thereof. The finder of goods has all rights against all persons in the world except the real owner. However, if the owner is not traced or if the owner does not file a claim, the question arises as to the rights of the finder of the goods.
Reason: For things found on land, the owner is assumed to have a right to them as he has custody of them.
OCCUPIER'S LIABILITY
Trespassers: He is a person who unlawfully enters the land of the occupier, without any right or permission to be there. This must relate to the use or enjoyment of land or any right therein or in connection with it, which causes the claimant physical discomfort or any damage to his property. There is no liability for abnormal sensitivity of any person or property. i) Robinson V. kilvert ii) Heath V. Brighton. iii) Wagon Hill Cabinet.
According to the special aid law, the court can issue a temporary or permanent injunction depending on the circumstances of the case.
CAPACITY
- Peninsular and oriental Steam Navigation Co. V
- Rup Ram V. State of Punjab
- Kasturilal v. State of U.P
In England, at common law, husband and wife had to be sued for the wife's tort. Gajendragadkar J, held that the State was not liable. i) The police officers were within their statutory powers. ii) The authority of the police to hold the property (gold) was a 'sovereign function'. not responsible for the act performed in the exercise of sovereign function. In a leading case (Taff Vale Railway Co.), the House of Lords had held that the unions could be sued for the wrongful acts of their officials.
If it is not registered, one or more members may be sued on behalf of the union.
REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE
- The test of reasonable foresight
It was due to the negligence of D's employees that the fire had occurred and D was therefore liable for all the consequences, even if they could not reasonably have been foreseen. Wagon Mound, an oil tanker, was chartered by D and had been chartered in Sydney (Australia) harbour. Owing to the negligence of D's servants, oil spilled from the waggon mound, spread over to the wharf, where P was engaged in some welding operations.
Two days later, molten metal from the car embankment fell onto the cotton waste, caught fire and caused extensive damage to the wharf and equipment.
NEGLIGENCE
- Duty to take care
- Breach of duty
- There must be a breach of duty
- Consequent damage
G had exercised all the care that a prudent surgeon would have done and was unaware of the tear in the ampoule. The damage to the plaintiff must be a direct result of the defendant's negligence. Naturally, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
Such a situation arises when the plaintiff, P is placed in a position of imminent personal danger by the wrongful conduct of the defendant.
TRESPASS TO LAND
Trespass ab initio
It was held that the police officers were liable for trespass ab initio in respect of documents seized and returned. The dispossessed person P, can re-enter if it is possible or can enter in terms of the orders of the Court. For cattle trespass, the animal can be detained until compensation is paid by the owner of the animal. e).
Similarly, the plea of the trespasser that P has no rights or title will not be allowed in the case of Trespass to land.
REMEDIES IN TORTS
Since access without proper authorization amounted to an attack on the liberty of P, the court awarded exemplary damages. In "Contemptuous damages", the court finds that the plaintiff should not have brought an action, as the case was so "Trifling". The court forms a low opinion of the plaintiff, but, to protect his right, it awards one rupee or a small sum.
He has the authority to seize and hold the animal until compensation is paid.
DEATH IN RELATION TO TORTS
In India, a claim can be brought against the legal representatives or heirs or executors of the deceased's will. The people were deceived and started buying D's goods while P. P. sued D. The circumstances showed that D was liable for deception. In India Trade and Merchandise Act 1958 Protects the interests of the users of the registered trademarks and action can be initiated against those who violate this right.
Special damages mean that a property may be sold at a lower price because of the defamation, or the owner may experience significant inconvenience and trouble because of the defamation.
Essentials
CONSPIRACY
The defendants D, the union officials, demanded that P should fire his workers and hire only the members of the union. The combination was not to injure W or others but only to protect the interests of the newspaper trade. There must be two or more persons with the intent or purpose of injuring a third person.
There must be an overt action to cause harm, apart from the combination of persons.
THE END
