LANDMARK JUDGMENT ON LAW OF TORTS

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

CASE NAME

HELD

1.       Mayor of Bradford Corporation v. Pickles (1895) A.C. 587

The House of Lords did not establish that legal action requires the plaintiff to demonstrate actual injury, but rather a more specific principle regarding malicious intent.

2.       Smt. S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India, AIR 1979 SC 49

The court clarified that "malice in law" refers to a deliberate act done without legal justification or excuse, even without actual malicious intent. A wrongful intention is presumed when an unlawful act is intentionally committed without a valid defense or for an unauthorized purpose.

GENERAL DEFENCES

3.       Padmavati v. Dugganaika, (1975) ACJ 222

The Karnataka High Court held that neither the driver nor the owner of the jeep was liable for the accident that injured the passengers, applying the principle of volenti non fit injuria. The passengers, who had voluntarily accepted a ride in the poorly maintained jeep, were aware of the inherent risks, thereby forfeiting their right to claim damages. The court also found the accident to be a sheer, unforeseeable mechanical failure and not due to rash or negligent driving.

4.       Smith v. Charles Baker and Sons, (1891) A.C. 325

The court ruled that an employee's awareness of a workplace risk does not automatically mean they consented to it, thus preventing the application of the maxim volenti non fit injuria and holding the employer liable for negligence in a stone quarry accident.

5.       Haynes v. Harwood, (1935) 1 K.B. 146

The court held the defendant liable for injuries sustained by a police constable who, in the course of duty, tried to stop runaway horses caused by the defendant's negligence. The court found the defendant's negligence in leaving the horses unattended created a foreseeable risk of harm, making the rescuer's intervention a reasonable act.

6.       Nichols v. Marshland, (1876)

Defendant created some artificial lakes on his land. There was extraordinary rainfall (heaviest in human memory) and as a result of it water overflowed and washed away the nearby bridge of plaintiff. The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that the extraordinary rainfall was an "Act of God" and therefore Marsland was not liable for the damage.

7.       Bird v. Holbrook, (1828)

The court ruled in favor of the trespasser because the defendant had set a spring gun on his property without warning, and the force used by the gun to injure the trespasser exceeded reasonable necessity, meaning the defendant was liable for the injuries sustained by the trespasser even though they had trespassed on his land.

8.       Cope v. Sharpe, (1912) 1 K.B. 496

The court found the defendant not liable for trespass because his entry onto the plaintiff's land was an act of necessity to prevent the spread of an imminent and dangerous fire to the defendant's master's property, thus averting greater harm. The action was deemed reasonably necessary and not intentional, fitting the legal defense of necessity.

9.       Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail Co., (1860)

In this case a Sparks from the engine of a rail company set fire to the appellant’s woods on adjoining land. It was held that since the respondent had taken care to prevent emission of spark, they were held not liable.

REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE

10.   Glasgow Corp v. Muir, (1943) A.C. 488

This case established that liability in negligence depends on the reasonable foreseeability of harm, judged by the standard of a reasonable person. In this case, the House of Lords ruled that the Glasgow Corporation was not negligent, because the incident was not reasonably foreseeable.

11.   Bolton v. Stone, & (1951) A.C. 850

In this case a person walking on the road was injured by a cricket ball hit from a nearby ground, and the court ruled that the cricket club was not negligent because the injury was deemed so unlikely and unforeseeable, meaning a reasonable person would not have taken extra precautions to prevent it.

12.   Latimer v. A.E.C. Ltd, (1953) A.C. 643 -

The legal principle established in this case is that the duty of care in negligence requires taking reasonable precautions to mitigate foreseeable risks, not eliminating all risks entirely. An employer is not expected to ensure the absolute safety of employees and will not be liable for accidents resulting from risks that could not have been foreseen or eliminated by taking reasonable measures.

13.   Smith v. London & Western Railway Co., (1870)

The court held the railway company liable for a fire that destroyed the plaintiff's cottage, not because they foresaw the specific damage, but because their negligence in allowing dry grass to accumulate near the tracks was a direct cause of the fire, even if the high winds that spread it were an unforeseen factor. The case established that a defendant is responsible for all direct consequences of their wrongful act, regardless of whether they could have foreseen the exact outcome.

14.   Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engg. Co. Ltd.

This case is also known as The Wagon Mound No. 1, the court established the principle that a party is only liable for foreseeable consequences of their negligence. This means that if a reasonable person could not have anticipated the specific damage that occurred, then they are not liable for it, even if their actions initially caused the harm. In this case, the court determined that the ignition of the oil spill by molten metal falling from a wharf was not reasonably foreseeable, and therefore, the ship owner was not liable for the resulting damage.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

15.   State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi, AIR 1978 SC 1263

The Supreme Court ruled that the bank was not liable for the employee's misappropriation because it was an act committed outside the scope of the employee's employment, and therefore, the bank could not be held vicariously liable. The key principle established is that a bank is only responsible for fraudulent acts of its employees that are performed within the course of their employment and official duties.

16.   State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijay Singh, AIR 1995 SC 2499

The Supreme Court held that if an unauthorised and wrongful act of the servant is not so connected with the authorised act as to the mode of doing that authorised act then the master is not liable.

17.   Beard v. London General Omnibus Co., (1900) 2 QB 530

The master (the bus company) was not held liable because the conductor, who was not authorized to drive the bus, negligently drove it to turn it around at the end of a journey, resulting in an accident. The court ruled that the conductor's actions were outside the scope of his employment and thus, the company was not responsible for his negligence.

18.   Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co., (1862) 1 H & L525

This case established the legal principle that an employer can be held vicariously liable for the wrongful actions of an employee, even if those actions were expressly prohibited, provided the employee was acting within the general scope of their employment.

STRICT & ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

19.   Rylands v. Fletcher, (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330

This case established the principle of strict liability in tort law, holding a person liable for damages from a dangerous substance brought onto their land, even if they were not negligent and employed independent contractors. The defendant, Rylands, was found responsible for the escape of water from his newly built reservoir, which flooded the plaintiff's coal mines, even though the water's escape was due to an overlooked, unsealed shaft on the property.

20.   M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086

The Supreme Court of India established the principle of absolute liability for industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities. This ruling rejected the 19th-century English tort law principle of strict liability, famously established in Rylands v. Fletcher, and created a new, stricter standard.

NEGLIGENCE

21.   Smith v. London and South Western Railway Co., (1870) L.R. 6 CP 14

The court established that a company is liable for damages if it carries out a statutory duty negligently. The railway company, despite being authorized to operate trains, was held responsible when its employees' failure to clear dry grass and hedge trimmings from the railway line led to sparks from their engines igniting the materials and causing a fire. This case demonstrated that statutory authority does not provide immunity from liability for negligence in performing authorized acts.

22.   Jacob Mathew. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180

Negligence is a breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent man would not do.

23.   Donoghue v. Stevenson, (1932) A.C. 562

This case established the modern concept of negligence, introducing the "neighbour principle" where a person owes a duty of care to those foreseeably affected by their actions. Lord Atkin's judgment stated that one must take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to their "neighbours"—anyone "closely and directly affected by my act"—laying the foundation for tort law to hold individuals liable for harm caused by negligence, regardless of a contractual relationship.

24.   Municipal Corporation, Delhi v. Subhagwanti, AIR 1966 SC 1750

The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, ruling that the MCD was negligent for the collapse of a clock tower it owned and managed. The Court affirmed that the very fact of the collapse, a structure under the MCD's exclusive control, indicated negligence, thereby placing the burden on the MCD to prove it was not at fault. This established that owners of structures abutting a highway have a special duty to ensure public safety, making them liable for injuries from disrepair, even from latent defects.

NUISANCE

25.   Dr. Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal AIR 1982 All. 285

The Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of a medical practitioner against his neighbor, who was operating a brick-grinding machine. The court granted special damages and a permanent injunction, finding that the dust from the machine created an actionable nuisance that adversely affected the doctor's profession and well-being.

26.   RadheyShyam v. Gur Prasad AIR 1978 All. 86

The Allahabad High Court determined that operating a flour and oil mill in a residential area was an actionable private nuisance due to the substantial disturbance it caused to neighboring residents. The court granted a permanent injunction against the mill's operation.

27.   Mayor of Bradford Corp. v. Pickles (1895) AC 587

The House of Lords ruled that a lawful act, such as a landowner diverting water on their property, does not become a tortious nuisance solely because it was done with a malicious intent to cause harm.

DEFAMATION

28.   Dixon v. Holden, (1869)7EQ488

The court held that a person's reputation is their property, and in many cases, it is even more valuable than tangible possessions. The case is a landmark in the law of defamation for this principle, which provides a legal basis to protect a person's standing in society from false and malicious statements.

29.   D.P. Chaudhary v. Manjulata, AIR 1997 Raj. 170

The Rajasthan High Court held the publisher and editors of the daily newspaper Dainik Navjyoti liable for defamation after they published a false report about a college student. The court ruled that the newspaper acted with gross negligence and awarded damages to the plaintiff, Kumari Manjulata.

30.   Tolley v.J.S. Fry and Sons Ltd., (1931) A.C. 333

The House of Lords held that an advertisement featuring an amateur golf champion that implied his paid endorsement of a product was defamatory. This was considered an "innuendo" because, while the image was not explicitly defamatory, its context implied a secondary, damaging meaning.

31.   Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd., (1929)2K.B. 331

This is a landmark English tort law case from 1929 that established key principles regarding defamation by innuendo and the strict liability of publishers. The case holds that a defendant can be held liable for defamation even if they did not intend to defame the plaintiff, and even if the defamatory meaning arises from extrinsic facts that were unknown to the defendant.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION

32.   West Bengal State Electricity Board vs Dilip Kumar Ray, AIR 2007 SC 976

The Supreme Court of India defined malicious prosecution as a judicial proceeding initiated with a wrongful motive and without probable cause, and held that for it to be constituted, there must be an absence of probable cause for the prosecution and a termination of the proceedings in favor of the plaintiff.

33.   Hicks v. Faulkner, (1878) 8 QBD167

The court, through Justice Hawkins, established a foundational definition of "reasonable and probable cause" for the tort of malicious prosecution. The ruling is significant because it introduced both subjective and objective elements to the legal test, requiring that the accuser's belief in the plaintiff's guilt be both honestly held and based on reasonable grounds.