Session:- 2017-2022

Case study –smith vs leech brain &co

Name:- amlan panda date-

ROLL NO:-1782015

STUDENT NO:-1000065622

GUIDED BY:- asst. prof sonal singh

Asst.prof amrita jha

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:-
“It is not possible to prepare a project report without the assistance and
encouragement of the other people . This one is certainly no exception ”

On the very outset of this report , I would like to extend my sincere

and heartfelt obligation towards all the personage who have helped me
in this endeavor. Without their active guidance, help, cooperation and
encouragement , I would not have made headway in this project.

I am ineffably indebted to ASST.PROF SONAL SINGH and

ASST.PROF AMRITA JHA for conscientious guidance and
encouragement to accomplish this assignment .I am extremely thankful
and pay my gratitude to them for his valuable guidance and support on
completion of this project in its presently.

I express my gratitude to KIIT School Of Law for giving me this

opportunity .

I also acknowledge with a deep sense of reverence , my gratitude

towards my parents and members of my family, who has always
supported me morally and economically.

At last but not least gratitude goes to my friends who directly or

indirectly helped me to complete this project report.

Any omission in this brief acknowledgement does not mean lack of

gratitude.

Thanking You

Amlan Panda.
Smith v Leech Brain & Co is a landmark English tort law case in negligence,
concerning remoteness of damage or causation in law. It marked the
establishment of the eggshell skull rule(It is a well established legal doctrine
used in some tort law systems , with a similar doctrine applicable to Criminal
law) the idea that an individual is held responsible for the full consequences of
his negligence, regardless of extra, or special damage caused to others.

Facts

William Smith worked for an iron works, Leech Brain & Co. Ltd. (Leech)
(defendant). Operating a remotely controlled crane, Smith galvanized items by
dipping them into a large tank of molten metal. In order to protect its crane
operators, whose controls were located just a few feet from the tank, Leech
erected a low wall around the tank and also provided a sheet of corrugated iron
that crane operators placed between themselves and the wall. The operators’
backs were to the tank as they worked. Thus, they could not see the operation of
the crane and therefore relied upon signals from another worker located farther
from the tank. Many other galvanizers at the time situated their operators in
enclosed, windowed spaces from which they could safely see and perform their
work. Leech eventually adopted that practice as well. On August 15, 1950,
Smith was working the crane. At one point, he either turned toward the tank or
leaned out to see the worker giving him instructions, thereby placing his head
outside the iron sheet. A spray of molten metal burned Smith’s lip. When it
failed to heal and began to ulcerate, he saw a doctor who diagnosed the wound
as cancerous. Smith ultimately died from the cancer’s spread in October 1953.
His widow (plaintiff) sued Leech for negligence.
Action

The plaintiff, Mary Emma Smith, as administratrix of the estate of her deceased
husband, William John Smith, claimed, in an action commenced by writ dated
11 March 1955, damages from the defendants, Leech Brain & Co Ltd under the
Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908, and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act, 1934. The plaintiff's husband was a laborer and galvanizer
employed by the defendants at the Glaucus Iron Works, Poplar. The articles to
be galvanized were lowered into a tank containing molten metallic zinc and
flux. The method used depended on the size of the article. All articles were first
dipped in hydrochloric acid and the larger articles were then lowered into the
tank by means of an overhead crane, from a position behind a sheet of
corrugated iron. On 15 August 1950, the plaintiff's husband was operating the
overhead crane, using the corrugated iron sheet supplied, when a piece of
molten metal or flux struck and burned his lower lip. The burn was treated at the
time but he thought nothing of it. Ultimately the place where the burn had been
began to ulcerate and get larger. He consulted his general practitioner who sent
him to hospital where cancer was diagnosed. Treatment by radium needles
enabled the lip to heal and destroy the primary growth. Subsequently, however,
secondary growths were observed. Thereafter he had some six or seven
operations, and he died of cancer on 14 October 1953.

Defences

1.Volenti Non Fit Injuria - Defendant not liable where claimant voluntarily
assumed risk. Claimant must

* know of the risk

*voluntarily be exposed to the risk and

*assume the risk e.g Morris v Murray

2.Contributary Negligence

Due to the negligence of the workers of the company the molten metal burned
Smith’s lip due to which he died of cancer.
Assessment of damages

1. Mitigation of damage: Defendant’s burden to show that the plaintiff ought to

have taken reasonable steps to prevent or reduce the plaintiff’s loss

2. Measure of damage: Main purpose of damages in the tort of negligence is to

compensate for the losses suffered i.e. to restore the plaintiff as far as possible
to the position he or she would have been if not for the defendant’s negligence

3. Personal injury cases: Plaintiff can claim both general damages and special
damages. General damages include damages for pain and suffering, loss of
amenities (eg loss of capacity due to the loss of a limb) and future loss of
earnings. Special damages include medical expenses that have been reasonably
incurred and pre-trial loss of earnings

4. Economic loss cases: Amount recoverable depends on the precise scope of

duty of care in a particular case (eg whether the duty was merely to supply
information or to advise on a purported transaction).

Judgment

Jurisdiction – England and Whales

According to Lord Parker CJ the test is not whether these employers could
reasonably have foreseen that a burn would cause cancer and that the victim
would die. The question is whether these employers could reasonably foresee
the type of injury he suffered, namely , the burn. What is the particular case is
the amount of damage which he suffers as a result of that burn depends upon the
characteristics and constitution of the victim.

Judgment:

The eggshell skull rule operates as an exception the test that the type of damag
e which results to the plaintiff must be reasonably foreseeable result of the defen
dant’s negligence.

The eggshell skull rule means you must take your victim as you find him or
her.

The plaintiff’s intital burn injury was foreseeable and the defendant was liable
for the extreme consequence of the plaintiff’s death
Conclusion

Here in this case my opinion in this case was that the judgment given was
absolutely right . In this case the defendant as liable for the negligence caused
by him due to which the plaintiff got injured and the defendant would pay a
compensation to the plaintiff . Here in this case egg skull theory plays an
important part in this case which Lord Parker CJ defines it very well in this
case.