Cases

Trespass against person

Battery:

P. Kader VS K.A. Alagaraswami. Plaintiff chained like dangerous animal and kept
locked next to a window by policeman. Excessive, unreasonable force used
against person.

Assault:

Stephens VS Myers: At a meeting, the defendant was to be removed from the hall
by unanimous vote for disrupting the proceedings. He approached the chairman
with a clenched fist and threatening dialogues, but was restrained. Held liable for
creating apprehension.

False imprisonment:

Bird VS Jones: Footway enclosed illegally by defendant and seats put up.
Defendant insisted on right to pass and wasted half an hour. But since restraint
was partial and not total, the defendant was accquited.

Herring VS Boyle

The Meering’s Case: The defendant was suspected of stealing from the aviation
company, and hence was instructed to sit in a room and told that his compliance
was necessary for investigation. Sentries were posted outside. Though the
defendant had no knowledge of his imprisonment, the damages were awarded.

Unlawful detention:

Rudul Shal VS State of Bihar: The defendant was not released from the state
prison and was detained for a period of 14 years more than the rightful time. Case
succeeded and damages were awarded.

Trespass to Land

Madhav Vidal Kudwa VS Madhavdas Vallabdas: Judtified access is not trepass to

land. The defendant was living in a multi-storeyed building on rent, and parked his
car in the parking lot. The act was not considered trespass, as he was justified and
had the right to park his car.
Graham VS Peats: Jus terti not a defence, as trespass is a wrong against
possession, whether legal or illegal. The plaintiff held the land on a void lease, and
bought about an action for trespass on the defendant. The plaintiff won the case.

Six Carpenter’s Case: Non-feasance does not render trespass ab-initio, only
misfeasance does. The carpenters entered a bar, ordered food, didn’t pay. Not held
to be trespassers ab-initio.

Elias VS Pasmore: Policemen entered land to make an arrest, but also confiscated
some documents. Were only held to be trespassers in the matter of the papers, not
the arrest, and hence were not trespassers ab initio.

Hemmings VS Stokes Poges Golf Club: Reasonable force might be used in re-
entry as a defence to trespass by the defendant. The plaintiff was a servant who
refused to evacuate the premises after termination of his job, and was evicted by
the defendants forcibly.

Boden VS Roscoe: Distress damage feasants, a pony that had caused damage on
the defendant’s land was held until compensation was paid. The defendant was
justified in detaining the pony until payment.

Wood VS Leadbitter

Hurst VS Picture Theaters Ltd.: Hurst had a ticket to view a movie, but was
forcibly ejected on suspicion of not having a ticket mid-show. This was held to be
a wrongful act, as the license could not be revoked in this manner, it came with a
grant.

Trespass to Goods

Armoury VS Delamirie: Immediate possession sufficient for claim to hold. A

sweeper boy who found a jewel was entitled to full compensation when the jewel
was taken from him by a jeweler.

Kirk VS Gregory: Intention no defence. The defendant, upon the death of her
relative, removed the jewellery from the room where it was usually kept to her
room in belief it would be safer there. It was stolen, and she was held liable for
trespass to goods.

Banshi VS Goverdhan: Detinue. Defendant was to pay compensation for not

returning bicycle to the plaintiff.
Richardson VS Atkinson: Defendant took some wine from the plaintiff’s cask and
mixed water in the rest, and was held liable for conversion of the entire cask.

Roop Lal VS Union of India: Intention or lack of knowledge no defences. Military

jawans carried away firewood belonging to plaintiff believing them to belong to
the Union of India, but were held liable for conversion.

Nuisance

Dr Ram Raj Singh VS Babulal: Special damage shown in public nuisance. Brick
Kilm operated by defendant coated the doctor’s premises with red dust and hence
jeopardized his business. Injunction granted.

Winterbottom VS Lord Derby: Public nuisance again. Defendant’s agent

constructed a roadblock, plaintiff went ahead and removed it, and claimed
compensation for expenses incurred in the act, stating them to be special damages
to him. Claim not sustained.

Radhey Shyam VS Gur Prasad: Private nuisance. Flour mill to be opened in a

house where defendants reside. Injuction granted due to apprehension of much
noise and vibration causing nuisance from the mill.

Mayor of Bradford Corp. VS Pickles: Malice doesn’t make lawful act unlawful.
Defendant was maliciously digging holes on his own land to discolour and dirty
the water passing on to his neighbour’s land. Was not held liable.

Christie VS Davey: Malice, when it inspires a wrongful act, can be significant.

Irritated by music lessons carried out by plaintiff, defendant maliciously made
noises and hammered nails in his wall to interrupt and disrupt the classes. Held
liable for compensation and injunction.

Holywood Silver Fox Farm VS Emmett: Christie VS Davey carried over. Foxes
belonging to the plaintiff were deliberately scared by gunshots fired by the
defendant maliciously. Injunction and damages.

Sturges VS Brigman: Prescriptive right is a complete defence. Confectioanry was

run without interruption for a period of 20 years, after which the plaintiff
constructed a new branch of his business and felt it to be a nuisance. Claim not
sustained.
Robert VS Kilvert: Eggshell skull/delicate trade do not require extra care by
neighbours. Brown paper manufactured by plaintiff was of low quality due to the
heat produced by the defendant. Defendant was not held liable, as his actions
could not be nuisance to any normal trade.

Vicarious Liability of State

Vidyawati VS Lokumal: The plaintiff’s husband was killed by a rashly driven jeep
in the service of the government of Rajasthan. The state was held to be vicariously
liable, as the rash driving was held to be outside the sovereign functions.

Kasturi Lal VS State of UP: Much debated, controversial ruling. Kasturi Lal, a
jewel trader, was detained for searching by police officials, and some of his
valuables were purloined by an errant officer who fled to Pakistan. Since the
detainment by police was a sovereign function, it was held that the state was not
vicariously liable.

Chairman, Railway Board VS Chandrima Das: Right to life, Art 21 involved.

Bangladeshi tourist gangraped by railway officials, state held liable as Art 21
applies to non-citizens within Indian territories too.

Defamation

D.P. Chowdhary VS Manjulata: The plaintiff was a girl from a well-respected

family in Jodhpur about whom an entirely erroneous article was printed, stating
that she had eloped with a boy. This damaged her reputation and was
unreasonable, she was awarded Rs 10,000 in general damages.

South India Railway Co. VS Ramakrishna: A ticket inspector said to the plaintiff
that he suspected him of travelling without a ticket, upon which the plaintiff
showed the TI his ticket. The plaintiff filed a acse for defamation, which was not
sustained, as the TI’s statement was taken to be bona fide and reasonable.

T.J Ponnen VS M.C Verghese: The husband wrote a defamatory letter about his
father in law to his spouse. The claim for defamation fell through, as spouses are
regarded as one legal entity and hence cannot be considered publication in thr true
and correct sense.

Alexander vs North Eastern Ry: Defence of justification/truth. Substantial truth

sufficient. Plaintiff was given fine of 1 pound and 2 week’s imprisonment, was
reported as three weeks. Defence of truth held.
Gregory VS Duke of Brunswick: The plaintiff, upon occupying the stage for his
performance, was hissed and booed by the defendant. Hissing and booing were not
taken as fair comment, and held to be defamation.

Cassidy VS Daily Mirror newspapers: The plaintiff’s husband’s engagement with

another woman was announced, which casted innuendo on her relationship with
him. Held defamatory.

Hulton Co. VS Jones: A fictional article about a character named Artemus Jones
was published, showing this Jones in a bad light. A real person with the same
name filed a suit for defamation, and it was held.

Knupffer VS London Express Newspaper: Group defamation, special damage

must be proved. The appellant was a member of a party about which statements
had been published. Though some of his friends thought the article referred to
him, sufficient evidence couldn’t be raised and hence his claim was dismissed.

Negligence:

Duty of care-

Makbool Ahmad VS Bhura Lal- Plaintiff’s husband caught between two buses,
fell, and was ran over, crushed, and dragged by rear wheel of bus due to
negligence of conductor is starting the vehicle before he had boarded properly.

Donoghue VS Stevenson: Rotten snail found in drink bought, duty of care

established.

Bolton VS Stone: Duty of care must be reasonable and probable. In past 30 years,
cricket ball flew out of stadium 6 tims, enver injured anyone. Probability of
accident happening tiny, hence defendants not held liable when cricket ball hit out
of stadium and injured passerby.

Ryan VS Youngs: Lorry driver suddenly died, it was unforeseeable. Lorry crashed
causing damage, but defendant was not held liable.

Philips India Ltd. VS Kunju Punnu: Plaintiff’s son passed away despite best
efforts of doctor, unfortunate but not a case of breach of medical duty of care.

Lakshmi Rajan VS Malar State Hospital: Uterus of 40 year old plaintiff removed
without justification, held to be breach of a doctor’s duty of care.
Breach of duty-

Latimer VS AEC Ltd- Due to water spill, oily film created on factory floor. Floor
covered by sawdust until supply gave out. Reasonable care taken, defendant not
held liable.

Veeran VS Krishnamoorthy: Driver had reaction time and distance to prevent

accident from occurring, but was still unable to prevent an accident. Held liable.

Res Ipsa Loquituir:

Burden of proof lies of plaintiff, as said by Lord Wensleydale in Morgan VS Sim.

Delhi Municipal Board VS Subhagwanti- Clock tower in Chnadni Chowk

collapsed, was 80 year old when average expectancy was 40 years. RIL held.

RSEB Vs Jai Singh: Electric wires, 20 year old and once shoddily repaired, fell
and electrocuted a man. RIL held.

Syed Akbar VS State of Karnataka: RIL not held, as driver did best to avoid
damage to 4 year by swerving to right, hence RIL not the only inference possible.

Nervous Shock:

Wilkinson VS Downton: Practical joke, plaintiff told her husband has broken both
legs. Serious illness causes, defendant held liable.

Bourhill VS Young: Not held, as it was not foreseeable that nervous shock would
be caused. Fishwife, the plaintiff, got out of a tramcar, didn’t see accident but
viewed blood and a month later gave birth to a still-born child. Not liable.

Contributory Negligence:

Rural Transport service VS Bezlum Bibi: Conductor and Bus Driver invited
passengers to sit on roof. Swerved to a side road, passengers caught by tree
branch, husband of plaintiff fell and died. Held to be contributory negligence.

Agya Kaur VS Pepsu Road Transport Commission: Bus travelling at such speed
that it crashed into rickshaw AND electric pole. Even though rickshaw was
overloaded, this negligence did NOT contribute to damage, and hence contributory
negligence not held.
Shyam Sunder VS State of Rajasthan: Plaintiff’s relative jumped out of a truck
that caught fire to save himself, stuck stone and died. He took an alternate danger,
not held to be contributory negligence.

Composite Negligence:

Hira Devi VS Bhabha Kanti Das: Accident caused due to fault of bus drive and
driver of incoming car, several injuries and one death caused. Composite
negligence held, earlier approportion of damage done, later held to not be a
approportinatable case.