Torts case laws Flashcards by Shreya

the plaintiff,, consumed ginger beer purchased by a friend. The bottle, manufactured by Stevenson, contained a decomposed snail, which she only discovered after drinking part of its contents. She suffered from shock and gastrointestinal illness due to the incident. The House of Lords held that defendant, as the manufacturer, owed a duty of care to her. Lord Atkin famously articulated the “neighbor principle,” stating that individuals must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm their “neighbour’s”—those who are closely and directly affected by their actions. The court concluded that defendant had breached his duty of care, establishing the principle that tort law imposes a legal obligation to prevent harm to others. This case set the foundation for negligence law, which has since been a cornerstone of tort law in both common law jurisdictions and India

Donoghue v Stevenson

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

a clock tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, collapsed, killing several individuals. The structure, owned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, had not been maintained despite being in a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court held that the Municipal Corporation owed a duty of care to the public to ensure that the clock tower was safe. The corporation’s failure to take necessary precautions constituted a breach of this duty. The court emphasized that public bodies are obligated to act responsibly, especially when their negligence endangers the lives of individuals. The court held the Municipal Corporation liable for the deaths, establishing that breach of a legal duty owed to the public is actionable under tort law

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Subhagwanti

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

pesticide plant in Bhopal, causing the death of thousands and injuring many more. The Union of India filed a claim on behalf of the victims, seeking compensation. The Supreme Court emphasized that Union Carbide had a duty of care to ensure that its operations did not pose a risk to the surrounding community. The catastrophic failure to maintain safety standards resulted in severe harm to the victims. The court assessed the damages based on the loss of life, injuries, and long-term consequences suffered by the affected individuals. The court awarded $470 million in compensation, underscoring the role of unliquidated damages in providing equitable remedies to victims of torts. This case also highlighted the importance of corporate accountability in tort law.

Union Carbide Corporation v Union of India

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the plaintiff, was unlawfully prevented from voting in a parliamentary election by the defendant, White, a returning officer. Although plaintiffs vote would not have changed the election result, he sued for the infringement of his legal right. The court held that the plaintiff’s right to vote was a fundamental right in rem. The interference with this right, even if it did not lead to tangible harm, was actionable in tort law. The court ruled in favour of plaintiff , affirming that tort law protects rights enforceable against anyone who infringes upon them. This case underlines the principle that tort law safeguards public rights, such as voting, against unlawful interference

Ashby v White

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

illustrates the principle of
compensating harm caused by the wrongful deprivation of liberty. a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), was unlawfully detained by the police, preventing him from attending an important legislative session. The detention was carried out without following proper legal procedures. The Supreme Court held that the state’s actions violatedplaintff’s fundamental rights, including his personal liberty and right to perform his duties as an MLA. The court recognized the harm caused by the wrongful detention, both to him and the democratic process. The court awarded monetary compensation to him, affirming that tort law provides remedies for harm caused by the violation of personal rights. This case reinforced the principle that harm, or injury is an essential element of torts

Bhim Singh v State of Jammu and Kashmir

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the defendants were punished for murder, reflecting society’s condemnation of taking another’s life.

R v. Dudley and Stephens

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the state prosecuted the accused for terrorism

State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the House of Lords held that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Woolmington v. DPP

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the court upheld the punishment for sedition, emphasizing societal interest

Kedarnath v. State of Bihar

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

taking one’s own car from a garage without payment was held to constitute theft under the law.

R v. Turner

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the court awarded exemplary damages for intimidation, highlighting tort’s role in addressing wrongful conduct that could also amount to a crime

Rookes v. Barnard

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

The plaintiff’s mill was stopped due to a broken shaft. The defendant delayed delivering the replacement shaft, causing additional losses. The court held that damages recoverable for breach of contract are those that arise naturally or are reasonably foreseeable. The plaintiff could not recover for extraordinary losses not communicated to the defendant

Hadley v. Baxendale

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Investors sued under both contract and tort for losses caused by negligent management. The court recognized that concurrent liability in contract and tort is possible when the same set of facts gives rise to both obligations. The claimants could proceed with actions in both contract and tort

Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

The plaintiff provided construction services to the defendant (the State) without a formal contract. The State benefited from the work but refused payment. The court recognized an obligation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to compensate for the benefit received. The defendant was ordered to pay for the work as retaining the benefit without payment would result in unjust enrichment.

State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal and Sons

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

A contract was frustrated due to war, and an advance payment had been made. The court held that the party retaining the payment unjustly enriched itself. Restitution was ordered to prevent unjust enrichment.

Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Facts: A painter was injured when scaffolding provided by the dock owner collapsed.
Reasoning: The court determined that a duty of care exists when harm is foreseeable.
Holding: Recognized that duty of care applies to situations where harm can be reasonably anticipated

Heaven v. Pender

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Facts: A ship’s cargo was damaged due to a dropped plank that caused an explosion.
Reasoning: The court held that the defendant was liable for all direct consequences of negligence. Holding: Established liability for direct consequences, irrespective of foreseeability

Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co Ltd

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Facts: The plaintiff’s property was unlawfully seized by the defendant.
Reasoning: The court found that the plaintiff’s legal rights were infringed upon, even though no specific tort category was identified.
Holding: Recognized that liability extends beyond established categories of torts.

Chapman v. Pickersgill

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Facts: A schoolmaster established a rival school, leading to financial losses for the plaintiff’s existing school. The plaintiff sued for damages.
Reasoning: The court ruled that although the plaintiff suffered financial loss, no legal right was violated.
Holding: The claim was dismissed, establishing that economic loss without infringement of a legal right is not actionable.

Gloucester Grammar School Case

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Facts: A group of shipping companies formed a trade association and fixed lower freight rates, causing loss to an independent company that was forced out of business.
Reasoning: The House of Lords held that since no unlawful means were used and no legal rights were violated, the plaintiff had no actionable claim.
Holding: The court dismissed the claim, ruling that competition, even if it results in financial loss, is not unlawful.

Mogul Steamship Co. Ltd. v. McGregor, Gow & Co.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Facts:plaintiff was appointed as a Justice of the Peace, but his commission was not delivered by the Secretary of State, defendant. Plaintiff petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the delivery of his commission.
Reasoning: The U.S. Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, held that plaintiff had a vested right to his commission, and the law provided him with a remedy. However, the Court also ruled that the specific remedy sought was not within its jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Holding: This case reinforced the principle that every legal right must have a remedy while establishing the judiciary’s power of judicial review

Marbury v. Madison

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Facts: The petitioner, was denied promotion in government service based on arbitrary considerations, despite being eligible and deserving.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court of India held that the denial of promotion was a violation of the petitioner’s legal rights and emphasized that any such infringement must be redressed.
Holding: The court granted appropriate relief, reinforcing the maxim that legal rights without remedies are meaningless.

Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the plaintiff, a spectator at a motor race, was injured when a car went off the track. The court held that by attending the race, the plaintiff accepted the inherent risks, and therefore, the defendant was not liable.

Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the plaintiff, a driving instructor, agreed to teach the defendant, a learner driver. During one of the lessons, the defendant lost control of the car, resulting in an accident that injured the instructor. The defendant argued that the instructor knew the risks of teaching a learner and, therefore, had consented to any injury. The legal issue involved is, does mere knowledge of the risk imply consent under Volenti Non Fit Injuria? The court held that while the instructor knew the risks involved in teaching a learner, he had not voluntarily waived his right to claim damages. The mere fact that a person is aware of a risk does not mean they have consented to accept injury without legal remedy. The defendant was found liable. The ruling established that for Volenti Non Fit Injuria to apply, there must be explicit voluntary acceptance of risk, not just knowledge of potential danger

Nettleship v. Weston

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

the plaintiff was employed to work in a quarry where stones were lifted using a crane. Despite repeated warnings about the risk, the plaintiff continued to work under the crane. One day, a stone fell and injured him. The employer (defendant) argued that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the risk and had voluntarily accepted it. The legal issue is does mere knowledge of a risk amount to voluntary acceptance of injury? The House of Lords ruled that although the plaintiff was aware of the risk, he had not voluntarily agreed to bear the consequences of that risk. A worker in an employment situation may know the dangers but may not have the choice to refuse the work. Since the plaintiff had no reasonable alternative but to work under the dangerous conditions, the defence of Volenti Non Fit Injuria was not available to the employer. The defendant was found liable. The ruling established that mere knowledge of a risk does not imply consent unless the plaintiff voluntarily accepts it as part of the conditions of engagement

Smith v. Baker

the plaintiff, a professional photographer, was covering a horse race. During the event, a rider lost control of his horse, which charged toward the plaintiff, causing injury. The photographer sued the rider for negligence.The legal issue involved is can a person attending a sports event claim damages for injuries caused by risks inherent to the event? The court ruled that by voluntarily positioning himself near the track, the plaintiff had implicitly accepted the risks associated with the event. There was no recklessness or negligence on the part of the rider, as horse racing naturally involves the risk of losing control. The defendant was not liable because the plaintiff had assumed the risk of injury by attending the event. The ruling clarified that individuals who willingly participate in or attend inherently risky activities (such as sports events) are presumed to have accepted ordinary risks associated with such events.

Wooldridge v. Sumner

The plaintiffs, experienced workers, ignored safety procedures and got injured. The court ruled that they had assumed the risk. However, had the employer been grossly negligent, the defence would not apply

Imperial Chemical Industries v. Shatwell

A workman was forced to work with a dangerous horse despite protest. The court ruled that his consent was not free, making the employer liable.

Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corporation

A horse was left unattended on a public street. A child threw a stone at the horse, causing it to bolt and injure the plaintiff, a police officer who attempted to stop it. The court held that although the immediate cause of the harm was the child’s action, the defendant had negligently left the horse unattended in a public area, creating a foreseeable risk. The defendant was held liable as they failed to take adequate precautions to prevent harm, despite the involvement of a third party.

Haynes v. Harwood

A passenger injured in a car crash while escaping from a crime was denied compensation due to his involvement in an illegal act.

Ashton v. Turner

Facts: The defendant had artificial lakes on his land. An unprecedented rainstorm caused the lakes to overflow and damage the plaintiff’s property. Reasoning: The court held that the rainfall was so extraordinary and unforeseeable that it could not have been prevented. Holding: The defendant was not liable, as the event was considered an Act of God

Nichols v. Marsland

Facts: The defendant altered the course of a stream by constructing a concrete paddling pool. An unusually heavy rainfall caused flooding and damaged nearby property. Reasoning: The court ruled that by modifying natural conditions, the defendant assumed responsibility for potential risks. Holding: The defendant was liable, as the intervention with the natural watercourse contributed to the damage.

Greenock Corporation v. Caledonian Railway Co.

Facts: A dispute arose regarding a force majeure clause in a contract when unexpected events affected contractual obligations. Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that force majeure is broader than Vis Major, as it includes both natural and human-made disruptions. Holding: The ruling clarified that not all unforeseen events qualify as Acts of God, especially if human actions play a role.

M/S. Dhanrajamal Gobindram vs. M/S. Shamji Kalidas and Co.

Facts: The plaintiff’s property was damaged due to heavy rainfall-induced flooding. The defendant claimed the defence of Vis Major. Reasoning: The court examined whether the rainfall was so extraordinary that it could not have been anticipated or mitigated. Holding: Since the rainfall was not unprecedented and could have been managed with better infrastructure, the defence of Vis Major was rejected.

Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai vs. State of Gujarat

Facts: A signboard installed by a bank fell during high-velocity winds, severely injuring the plaintiff. The bank claimed that the winds were an Act of God. Reasoning: The Delhi High Court noted that high-velocity winds in Delhi during summer are foreseeable. The bank was responsible for securing the signboard properly. Holding: The court ruled that the defence of Vis Major did not apply because the damage resulted from negligence in maintaining the signboard.

M/S Bank of Baroda & Anr vs. Mahesh Gupta & Ors

Facts: The defendant, Powell, was on a hunting expedition. While shooting at a bird, the bullet ricocheted off a tree and injured the plaintiff, Stanley. Stanley sued Powell for damages. Reasoning: The court held that the accident was not due to negligence but rather an unforeseeable and unavoidable event. Holding: The defendant was not liable as the injury was caused by an inevitable accident.

Stanley v. Powell

Facts: The defendant was trying to separate two fighting dogs using a stick. While doing so, he unintentionally hit the plaintiff, causing injury. Reasoning: The court determined that the defendant had acted reasonably and had not intended harm. Holding: The defendant was not liable as the injury was the result of an inevitable accident

Brown v. Kendal

Facts: The defendant's horses were startled by an unexpected noise, causing them to bolt and injure the plaintiff. Reasoning: Since the defendant had no control over the animals once they were frightened, the incident was deemed unavoidable. Holding: The defendant was not held liable as the accident was inevitable.

Holmes v. Mather

Facts: A dog left inside a parked car broke a glass window, injuring the plaintiff. Reasoning: The defendant failed to take necessary precautions by leaving the dog unattended in a risky situation. Holding: The defendant was liable as the accident was foreseeable

Fardon v. Harcourt-Rivington

A group of homeless individuals occupied an empty house owned by the local council, claiming they had no other place to stay and sought to justify their trespass under the defence of necessity. The court ruled that allowing necessity as a defence in such cases would encourage lawlessness and permit individuals to justify trespassing on private property based on personal hardships. The defence of necessity was rejected, as recognizing such a broad application would erode property rights and disrupt public order.

Southwark London Borough Council v. Williams

The defendant entered another person's land to prevent a fire from spreading and, in the process, caused some property damage. The court recognized that the defendant acted in good faith to prevent a larger catastrophe. Since the action was proportionate and necessary to avert greater harm, the defendant was entitled to the defence of necessity. The court ruled that the defendant was not liable for the damage as the action was essential to prevent significant harm, thereby validating the necessity defence.

Cope v. Sharpe

A woman remarried believing that her husband had died, as he had been missing for several years. Later, it was revealed that he was alive, and she was charged with bigamy. The court acknowledged that the mistake was made in good faith and based on a reasonable assumption of fact. The court acquitted the defendant, recognizing mistake of fact as a valid defence in criminal law, which is similarly applicable in certain tort cases

R v. Tolson

The defendant was driving on the wrong side of the road, believing that it was a one-way street. This led to an accident. The court held that while the defendant made an honest mistake, he was still liable as his misunderstanding arose from ignorance of traffic laws. The court ruled that ignorance of law is not a defence, reinforcing the principle of ignorantia juris non excusat.

Conway v. O’Brien

The defendant placed a pole on a public road, which the plaintiff, riding at an excessive speed, failed to notice and collided with, resulting in injuries. The court held that while the defendant was negligent in placing the obstruction, the plaintiff contributed to his own injury by failing to exercise reasonable care while riding. The court ruled in favour of the defendant, establishing the principle that a plaintiff cannot recover damages if their own negligence was a significant contributing factor.

Butterfield v. Forrester

The plaintiff negligently left his donkey tied on a public road. The defendant, driving a high- speed wagon, ran over the donkey, causing its death. Though the plaintiff was negligent in leaving the donkey on the road, the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the harm but failed to take reasonable care. The defendant was held liable, introducing the Last Opportunity Rule, which states that even if the plaintiff is negligent, the defendant can still be held responsible if they had the final chance to prevent the harm.

Davies v. Mann

The defendant owned a disused cinema, which was left unsecured. Vandals entered the building and started a fire that spread to the neighbouring properties, causing significant damage. The House of Lords held that while the fire was started by third parties, the defendant failed to secure the property, knowing that vandalism was a foreseeable risk. The court ruled that liability could arise if a defendant negligently fails to prevent foreseeable third-party actions that lead to harm.

Smith v. Littlewoods Organisation Ltd.

A railway company was legally operating its trains when sparks from one of its locomotives caused a fire that destroyed the plaintiff’s adjoining property. The railway company claimed statutory authority as a defence. The court ruled that although the railway company had statutory authority to operate trains, it had a duty to take precautions to prevent foreseeable harm. The company’s failure to prevent sparks from escaping constituted negligence. The court held the railway company liable, stating that statutory authority does not exempt a party from liability when negligence is involved

Smith v. London & South Western Railway

A railway company constructed tracks near the plaintiff’s property, leading to noise and vibrations that disrupted the plaintiff’s business. The plaintiff sued for damages, arguing that the construction caused a nuisance. The court determined that the railway company was acting within the scope of its statutory authority and had followed all necessary legal procedures. Since the action was legally sanctioned, the plaintiff had no remedy in tort. The court ruled in favour of the railway company, establishing that statutory authority can be a valid defence even when the activity causes inconvenience or damage, provided it is executed lawfully

Hammersmith Rail Co. v. Brand

The court defined negligence as "the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

But for test- a man who had ingested poisoned tea was sent away from the hospital without treatment and later died. The court applied the "but-for" test and found that even if treatment had been provided, the patient would have died anyway. The hospital was not liable as the negligence did not cause the death.

Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

a transport company’s reckless driving led to multiple fatalities, demonstrating gross negligence

Rural Transport Service v. Bezlum Bibi

the Supreme Court of India held the state liable for the negligent driving of its employee, setting an important precedent for government accountability.

State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Vidyawati

The plaintiff purchased woolen underwear manufactured by the defendant. The garment contained excess sulphite, which caused severe dermatitis upon wear. The court ruled that the manufacturer had a duty of care to ensure the safety of its products and that the defect was not detectable by the consumer. The defendant was held liable, reinforcing the doctrine of product liability.

Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills

The defendants negligently spilled oil into Sydney Harbour, which later ignited and caused extensive damage to nearby property. The court held that the damage must be a foreseeable consequence of the negligence. Since the ignition of the oil was not foreseeable, the defendant was not held liable for the fire damage.

The Wagon Mound (No.1)

where a person who brings and keeps anything likely to cause harm on their land is strictly liable if that thing escapes and causes damage. This rule does not require proof of negligence or wrongful intent. The defendant built a reservoir on his land. Water escaped through abandoned mine shafts, flooding the plaintiff’s coal mine. The House of Lords ruled that even though there was no negligence, the defendant was liable since they had introduced a dangerous substance onto their land. The court established the doctrine of strict liability, holding that one who brings and keeps hazardous materials is liable if they escape and cause harm

Rylands v. Fletcher

Chemicals from the defendant’s tannery seeped into the groundwater, contaminating the plaintiff’s water supply. The court ruled that for strict liability to apply, the damage must be foreseeable. Since the contamination was not foreseeable, liability was denied. The case clarified that while strict liability applies to inherently dangerous substances, the damage caused must be foreseeable.

Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather

A gas leak from Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Ltd. in Delhi resulted in severe injuries and deaths. The Supreme Court held that companies engaging in hazardous activities have an absolute duty to compensate victims, even without fault or negligence. The court introduced absolute liability, making industries engaging in hazardous activities strictly responsible for any resulting harm.

MC Mehta v. Union of India

Facts: The plaintiff was employed by the defendant to find his lost nephew. The defendant promised a reward to the person who found the nephew. The plaintiff, unaware of the offer, found the boy and claimed the reward. Reasoning: The court held that the defendant was not liable to pay the reward because the plaintiff was not acting within the scope of employment or authority. Holding: The defendant was not vicariously liable for the actions of the plaintiff because the plaintiff's actions were not carried out under the employer's direction or control.

Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt

Facts: A police officer employed by the state was involved in the wrongful arrest of a person. Reasoning: The court noted that the police officer was acting within the scope of his duty in the course of his employment. Holding: The state was held vicariously liable for the wrongful actions of its employee (the police officer), as he was acting in the course of his employment.

Silver v. The Queen

Facts: A motorcyclist, while performing a dangerous maneuver, caused a woman to suffer a miscarriage. The woman claimed for damages against the driver’s employer. Reasoning: The court found that the motorcyclist's actions were beyond the scope of his employment, as he was engaging in an activity for his own personal enjoyment. Holding: The court ruled that the employer was not vicariously liable as the tort was not committed within the scope of employment.

Bourhill v. Young

Facts: A servant of a state corporation, while acting within his duties, caused harm to a third party. Reasoning: The court examined whether the tort was committed during the course of employment. The defendant was an employee of a public corporation, and the act was related to his employment duties. Holding: The state (employer) was held vicariously liable for the tort committed by the servant during the course of his employment.

Kasturi v. State of Bihar

Facts: An agent of the principal acted negligently and caused harm to the plaintiff. The defendant (principal) argued that the agent’s actions were outside the scope of authority. Reasoning: The court examined the authority of the agent and the nature of the tort. The defendant’s liability was based on the agent acting within the scope of their authority. Holding: The court ruled that the principal was vicariously liable for the tortious act committed by the agent within the scope of the agent’s employment.

Rama Nath v. State of Bihar

Facts: The employer contracted out work to an independent contractor,and one of the contractor’s workers caused damage to a third party. Reasoning: The court examined whether the work contracted involved a non-delegable duty. In this case, the work involved inherently dangerous activities. Holding: The employer was held vicariously liable for the tort committed by the independent contractor because the work involved a non-delegable duty.

M/s. Clean India Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Facts: A partner in a firm caused damage while acting within the course of partnership activities. Reasoning: The court considered whether the partner’s actions were done within the scope of the partnership’s business. Holding: The other partners were held vicariously liable for the tortious act committed by the partner during the course of business.

Munna Lal v. Kishan Lal

Facts: A state employee caused harm during the course of their duties. The plaintiff sued the state for damages. Reasoning: The court analyzed whether the employee was performing governmental functions, and whether the state could be sued for the actions of its employee. Holding: The court held the state vicariously liable for the tort committed by its employee, rejecting the state's claim of sovereign immunity.

State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati

Facts: Two parties were involved in a defamation case, and the plaintiff sought damages against both. Reasoning: The court examined the roles of each defendant in causing the harm. Both were found to have contributed to the tort. Holding: Both defendants were held jointly liable for the damages, emphasizing the principle of joint tortfeasors.

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu

Facts: The defendants made threatening gestures towards the complainant, causing the complainant to fear immediate harm. Reasoning: The court found that a threat of imminent harm was sufficient to constitute assault, even if no physical contact occurred. Holding: The defendants were found liable for assault, as their actions created reasonable fear of immediate harm in the plaintiff.

R v. Meade and Belt

Facts: The defendant made threatening gestures towards the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff to fear an imminent assault. Reasoning: The court emphasized that an assault occurs when the victim reasonably apprehends an immediate threat of harm, even if no physical contact is made. Holding: The court held the defendant liable for assault, as the plaintiff had a reasonable fear of harm.

Katyayini v. Venkatesh

Facts: The plaintiff was touched by a police officer without her consent during an investigation. The police officer claimed it was necessary for the investigation. Reasoning: The court found that any physical contact without consent is battery, except in cases of necessity or trivial contact. Holding: The court held the police officer liable for battery as the touching was not consensual and was offensive.

Collins v. Wilcock

Facts: The plaintiff was forcibly removed from a vehicle by the defendant, resulting in injuries. Reasoning: The court found that the contact was unlawful, direct, and offensive, amounting to battery. Holding: The court held the defendant liable for battery, awarding the plaintiff compensation for the injuries caused.

Pushpender Singh v. State of Haryana

Facts: The plaintiff was unlawfully detained by the police, which caused severe emotional distress, including humiliation and fear. Reasoning: The court emphasized that the emotional distress caused by unlawful detention, which was not justified, is sufficient for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Holding: The court held the defendant liable for inflicting emotional distress on the plaintiff, awarding damages.

Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State

Facts: The plaintiff was wrongfully evicted from his property, and this act caused significant emotional suffering and anxiety. Reasoning: The court considered that the defendant's actions were outrageous, as they were not only unlawful but malicious. Holding: The court awarded compensation to the plaintiff, recognizing the emotional distress suffered due to the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

R. D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma

Reputation is an integral and important aspect of the dignity of an individual and a fundamental right. It is not only a component of personal security but also a societal concern. Protection of reputation is conducive to the public good and is a legitimate exercise of the State's power.

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

Facts: The defendant made oral defamatory statements against the plaintiff in a public gathering. Holding: The court held that though slander is generally considered less serious than libel, in Indian context, especially when spoken in public gatherings, slander can cause significant harm to reputation. Reasoning: The court reasoned that in Indian society, where oral communication remains influential, especially in small communities, spoken defamation can spread rapidly and cause substantial damage to reputation.

D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata

Facts: The accused published an article that did not name the complainant directly but contained sufficient information for readers to identify him. Holding: The Bombay High Court held that even though the complainant was not explicitly named, the publication was defamatory as it contained sufficient identifying information. Reasoning: The court reasoned that the test is whether reasonable people who know the plaintiff would understand the statement to refer to them.

Balu Tambe v. State of Maharashtra

Facts: The defendant wrote a defamatory letter about the plaintiff but sent it only to the plaintiff himself. Holding: The Patna High Court held that this did not constitute defamation since there was no publication to a third party. Reasoning: The court emphasized that damage to reputation requires communication to persons other than the plaintiff, as reputation exists in the minds of others.

Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad

Facts: Greenpeace created a game called "Turtle vs. Tata" criticizing Tata's port project for potentially harming olive ridley turtles. Holding: The Delhi High Court held that Greenpeace's actions were protected as fair comment on a matter of public interest. Reasoning: The court reasoned that environmental concerns are matters of public interest, and fair criticism, even if strong and provocative, is protected speech.

Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International

Facts: Maneka Gandhi sued author Khushwant Singh for defamation regarding certain statements in his autobiography. Holding: The Delhi High Court awarded damages, finding the statements defamatory and unjustified. Reasoning: The court reasoned that even in an autobiography, statements that unjustifiably harm another's reputation without sufficient basis in truth constitute defamation.

Khushwant Singh v. Maneka Gandhi

Facts: Several petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, arguing they violated the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a). Holding: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation. Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the right to reputation is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, and criminal defamation serves as a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2).

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

Facts: The case primarily challenged Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, but also addressed issues related to online speech. Holding: While striking down Section 66A as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court affirmed that defamation laws apply to online speech, subject to the same standards and defenses as traditional forms. Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the medium of communication does not alter the essential character of defamatory content, though it acknowledged the broader reach and permanence of online publications.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Facts: Namase Patel registered domain names incorporating Adobe's trademarks and used them to create websites that mimicked Adobe's official sites. Holding: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Adobe, ordering the transfer of the domain names and awarding damages. Reasoning: The Court reasoned that cybersquatting constitutes a form of passing off in the digital realm and infringes upon trademark rights. The Court noted that during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a significant increase in cybersquatting cases as businesses moved online, making protection against such practices even more crucial.

Adobe, Inc. v. Namase Patel

Facts: A nine-judge bench considered whether the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. Holding: The Supreme Court unanimously recognized privacy as a fundamental right inherent in Article 21. Reasoning: The Court reasoned that privacy encompasses personal intimacies, personal choices, informational privacy, and privacy of communications. This landmark judgment has profound implications for defamation law, particularly in cases involving private information.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India

Facts: The plaintiff objected to being included in Forbes' list of billionaires, claiming it violated her privacy and exposed her to security risks. Holding: The Delhi High Court recognized that publication of private financial information could constitute an invasion of privacy, though it did not find in favour of the plaintiff on other grounds. Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the right to privacy must be balanced against the public's right to information, particularly concerning public figures.

Indu Jain v. Forbes Incorporated

Facts: Visaka Industries sued Google for hosting defamatory content on its Blogger platform. Holding: The Supreme Court held that intermediaries could be held liable if they fail to remove defamatory content after receiving actual knowledge. Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while intermediaries are not expected to pre-screen all content, they must act expeditiously upon receiving knowledge of defamatory material.

Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. Visaka Industries Ltd.

Facts: An environmental NGO was sued for defamation after publishing a report critical of a mining company's environmental practices. Holding: The High Court dismissed the suit, characterising it as a SLAPP intended to silence legitimate criticism. Reasoning: The Court reasoned that suits designed primarily to chill public discourse rather than redress genuine reputational harm constitute an abuse of process.

Greenpeace India v. Coal & Mining Company

Facts: The case involved unauthorized entry into private land. Reasoning: The Supreme Court emphasized that trespass is not merely a physical intrusion but a violation of property rights. Holding: Trespass constitutes a civil wrong, entitling the property owner to seek damages and injunctive relief.

Dr. Ram Prasad v. State of West Bengal

Facts: Dispute over unauthorized sale of property Reasoning: The court analyzed the deliberate act of interfering with property rights Holding: Conversion allows the true owner to recover the property's full value or seek monetary compensation

Vidya Devi v. Mst. Parmeshwari Devi

Facts: Unauthorized access to personal digital accounts Reasoning: The court recognized digital spaces as extensions of personal privacy Holding: Cyber trespass can constitute both civil and criminal liability

State of Tamil Nadu v. Arunkumar

Facts: Repeated online harassment through social media platforms Reasoning: The court examined the psychological impact of persistent digital harassment Holding: Cyberstalking constitutes a serious violation of personal dignity and privacy rights

Swati Parashar v. Unknown

Facts: In this case, the residents of Ratlam filed a complaint against the municipal council for failing to address poor sanitation, open drains, and filth accumulation, which led to severe health hazards. Reasoning: The Supreme Court emphasized the obligation of municipal authorities to ensure public health and sanitation. The Court held that lack of financial resources could not be used as an excuse to avoid statutory duties. Holding: The Court directed the municipal authorities to take immediate steps to prevent the nuisance, establishing the precedent that public bodies have an enforceable duty to mitigate public nuisances.

Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Shri Vardichand

Facts: The petitioner, a medical practitioner, faced constant noise pollution from a nearby factory that disrupted his work and personal life. He sought damages for the inconvenience caused. Reasoning: The Court recognized the right of an individual to seek relief from substantial and unreasonable interferences affecting their enjoyment of property. Holding: The factory was ordered to adopt noise-reduction measures, reinforcing that nuisance claims must demonstrate significant and unreasonable disturbances.

Dr. D.P. Maheshwari v. State of Rajasthan

The Court held that legal authorisation could be a defence but must not be misused to justify clear public harm.

State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotels & Restaurants Association

Facts: The plaintiff suffered economic losses due to excessive pollution from the defendant’s factory. Holding: The Court awarded substantial damages, providing comprehensive guidelines for calculating compensation in nuisance cases.

Radhey Shyam Sharma v. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.

Facts: The plaintiff was falsely accused of theft of electricity and criminal proceedings were initiated against him. After a prolonged trial, he was acquitted as the charges were found to be baseless. Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that for a claim of malicious prosecution, it must be shown that the defendant acted with malice and without probable cause. Holding: The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages for loss of reputation and mental agony.

West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Dilip Kumar Ray

Facts: The defendant filed a criminal case against the plaintiff, which was later dismissed due to lack of evidence. The plaintiff then sued for malicious prosecution. Reasoning: The Bombay High Court held that mere failure of prosecution does not automatically mean malice; the plaintiff must establish wrongful intent. Holding: The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim due to lack of evidence of malice.

K.G. Mehta v. N.M. Billimoria

Facts: The defendant, a police officer, arrested the plaintiff on suspicion of theft based on a complaint by a third party. The plaintiff was later acquitted and sued for malicious prosecution. Reasoning: The Privy Council held that since the defendant had acted on a reasonable complaint and in good faith, there was no malice. Holding: The court ruled that the plaintiff could not claim damages for malicious prosecution as there was no wrongful intent.

Gaya Prasad v. Bhagat Singh

Facts: A railway company brought criminal charges against a doctor, suspecting fraud in issuing medical certificates. The doctor was acquitted and sued for malicious prosecution. Reasoning: The court held that the railway company had reasonable and probable cause to believe in fraud, and mere acquittal did not prove malice. Holding: The claim for malicious prosecution was dismissed as the prosecution was based on reasonable cause.

Abrath v. North Eastern Railway Co.

Facts: The plaintiff was wrongly implicated in a political case and later acquitted. He filed for damages for malicious prosecution. Reasoning: The Supreme Court emphasized that wrongful prosecution causes serious harm to individuals and upheld the claim for compensation. Holding: The court granted monetary compensation for the damages suffered.

K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier

The complainant had booked a flat from the developer, and the possession was delayed considerably. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that a homebuyer is a consumer and the delay in handing over possession amounted to deficiency in service. The Commission emphasized that real estate services fall under the ambit of services under the CPA, and any delay adversely affects the consumer.

Kavita Ahuja v. Shipra Estates Ltd. & Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Supreme Court held that medical services fall within the ambit of 'services' under the Act. Where deficiency is proven, corrective directions can be issued

Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha

minor was given the wrong injection, leading to severe consequences. The Court awarded compensation not only to the minor but also to the parents for mental agony.

Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia

was held that banking services fall within the definition of 'service', and any arbitrary or unfair practice, such as wrongful deduction, can be redressed.

CERC v. Canara Bank

the Delhi High Court upheld the importance of transparency in digital marketplaces and prohibited unauthorized listings, emphasizing the duty of e-commerce platforms to protect consumer interests.

Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) invoked product liability provisions to penalize the car manufacturer for supplying defective vehicles, demonstrating the expanded scope of consumer rights under the 2019 Act.

Volkswagen Emissions Scandal India

Supreme Court underscored the need for timely adjudication. However, backlog data from 2023 indicates that over 4 lakh cases are pending across consumer forums.

Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

the Supreme Court acknowledged the broader difficulties in executing quasi- judicial decisions, a concern equally applicable to consumer forums.

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation v. Ashok Iron Works

Torts case laws Flashcards

(106 cards)