Landmark Judgments of Law of Torts
The 28 leading Law of Torts cases — each with a full brief (facts, issues, held, ratio). Verified against the original judgment. Free to read.
Negligence — duty of care, breach, contributory negligence
- Davies v. Mann A negligent plaintiff may still recover where the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident by ordinary care.
- Donoghue v. Stevenson A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer; one must avoid acts reasonably foreseeable to injure one's neighbour.
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti The collapse of a clock tower under the corporation's exclusive control raised an inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur, making it liable.
- Dr. Lakshman Balkrishna Joshi v. Trimbak Bapu Godbole A medical practitioner must bring a reasonable degree of skill, knowledge and care; breach of that standard amounts to actionable negligence.
- Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha Medical service rendered for consideration is a 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act; doctors are liable in negligence and answerable before consumer forums.
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer Where both the victim and the defendant are at fault, liability must be apportioned; the defendant is not wholly absolved, nor the contributory negligence ignored.
Vicarious liability & State / sovereign liability
- Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India State is liable for torts of its servants in non-sovereign functions but immune for acts done in exercise of sovereign powers.
- State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati State is vicariously liable like an ordinary employer for the negligence of its driver where the act is not in exercise of sovereign power.
- Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh State is not liable where the tortious act was committed by servants in the exercise of statutory powers that can be characterised as sovereign powers.
- N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh The doctrine of sovereign immunity has no relevance in the present day; the State is liable for negligence of its officers in non-sovereign, regulatory functions.
- Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das The State is liable for violation of the right to life under Article 21, available even to foreign nationals; sovereign immunity is no defence.
Strict & absolute liability (Rylands v Fletcher; M.C. Mehta)
- Rylands v. Fletcher One who brings and keeps on his land a dangerous thing likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for damage from its escape, even without negligence.
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak case) An enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is absolutely liable, without exceptions, to compensate all those harmed by an escape such as toxic gas.
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (Bichhri case) Hazardous enterprises causing environmental pollution are absolutely liable under M.C. Mehta and must, on the Polluter Pays principle, bear the cost of remedying the damage they cause.
- M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar An authority handling a dangerous commodity like electricity is strictly liable for death by electrocution from a snapped live wire, and cannot escape via the act-of-stranger defence where the danger was foreseeable.
Remoteness, nervous shock & malicious prosecution
- Gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh A complainant who, knowing the charge to be false, misleads the police by procuring evidence to secure conviction is the real prosecutor and liable for malicious prosecution.
- Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd. A defendant guilty of a negligent act is liable for all its direct consequences, whether or not those particular consequences were foreseeable.
- Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound No. 1) A defendant is liable in negligence only for damage of a kind that a reasonable man could have foreseen, not for all direct consequences.
- Girja Prasad Sharma v. Umashankar Pathak A complainant who lodges a knowingly false FIR acts without reasonable and probable cause and maliciously, and is liable for malicious prosecution; an honest investigating officer is not.
Nuisance, trespass & defamation
- Hurst v. Picture Theatres Ltd. A licence coupled with a grant (a paid right to view a spectacle) is not revocable at will; wrongful ejection of the licensee is assault, not removal of a trespasser.
- T.J. Ponnen v. M.C. Verghese A defamatory letter from husband to wife, though privileged from spousal testimony under Sec. 122 Evidence Act, may still be proved by other means in a defamation prosecution by the person defamed.
- Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal A plaintiff who proves special damage distinct from the public at large can maintain a civil action and obtain an injunction for what is otherwise a public nuisance.
- D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata Defamatory words are actionable per se in India; general damages are presumed without proof of special damage, and intention to defame is immaterial.
Motor accident compensation — no-fault & just compensation (MV Act)
- Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan Under the unamended MV Act, liability of the owner or insurer arises only if negligence of the owner or driver is proved; there is no liability without fault.
- Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai No-fault liability under Section 92-A is a beneficial social-justice provision; the term 'legal representatives' entitled to claim is wide and not confined to spouse, parents and children.
- K. Nandakumar v. Managing Director, Thantai Periyar Transport Corporation Compensation on no-fault basis cannot be denied merely because the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the injured claimant.
- Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Compensation for death or permanent disablement is payable under Section 140 on the no-fault principle without proof of negligence; the defence available to the insurer is confined and cannot defeat interim no-fault relief.
- State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur Compensation under the MV Act must be 'just' — fair, equitable and reasonable — neither a windfall or bonanza nor a pittance, determined by a rational and judicious approach.
