CASES

1. Wagner vs international railways 232 N.Y. 176, 133 N.E. 437 (1921) VNFI limitations- rescue operations (first person, dying because of negligence of train authority, second person tried to save, got injured, got compensated) 2. Haynes vs Harwood (1935 1 K.B. 146) limitations of VNFI rescue operations. (Horse left, went berserk police intervened, got injured, got compensated) 3. Bowater vs Rowley Regis Corp. (1944 KB 476) VNFI-overruled-carter told by his master to take a horse which was unsafe, knowledge, carter injured due to horse, undue influence used, vnfi overruled due to breach of duty, ruled that person with occupation with not such an unsafe risk cannot be VNFI, if had been paid extra then consideration for consent and VNFI ruled) 4. Smith vs baker and sons (1891 A.C. 625) VNFI overruled (employee worked to drill mines, got injured, VNFI overruled-because breach of duty, when you are shifting, there must be a warning bell, the warning bell was not used, mere knowledge not complete for VNFI-got compensated)assumption of risk 5. Wooldridge vs sumner (1963 vol 2 QB 43) VNFI-(negligence)-(photographer at horse race, got hurt due to Sumners horse, held that the sporting committee is liable to the spectators only if there is reckless disregard, no breach of duty; one more thing the photographer wasnt placed where the other spectators were, he was not behind the bars not compensated vnfi held ) 6. R vs. Williams 1923 1 KB 3408-Consent by fraud-(williams was a music teacher who taught mary cannel music, on one occasion he said that your voice is not as it should be and therefore said that he needs to perform a certain operation to open the air passage per vaginum , performed sexual intercourse and said in court that there was consent, but overruled because consent was taken by FRAUD) 7. Rylands vs fletcher 1868 L.R. 3 H.L. 330 -negligence strict liability-inevitable accident overruled-(fletcher employed contractors to build a reservoir near rylands coal mine place, the contractors did not tell about a shaft which was open connected to rylands mine, after building the reservoir, water escaped through the shaft and damaged the mine, rylands got compensation on strict liability and the contractors were not held liable) Blackburn J (delivering the judgment of the court): "the person who for his own purpose brings on his lands [] anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril and is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.") 8. Nichols v marsland 1876 2 Ex. D 1

9. R.R.N. Ramalinga Nadar vs V. Narayana Reddiar 1971 AIR Ker 197-act of god overruled-(nadar ordered for 18 gram of kottar from a manufacturer, he gave the goods to a transportation lorry who was the common carrier, the order did not reach in time, found out that a jatha had attacked the lorry and looted the goods, the defendant fought that the case was under act of god, overruled and said in the absence of any special contract negativing liability for loss occasioned by events beyond his control, a common carrier engaged in road transport is liable for loss of goods destroyed on the way by unruly mob-the activity of the mob is not act of god.) 10. Mahindranath Mukherjee vs mathuradas chaturbuj 1956 AIR Cal 175 11. Stanley vs Powell 1891 QB 11 86-tresspass-inevitable accident-(powell went for hunting pheasant, shot deflected and hurt Stanley, inevitable accident defense taken in, as nothing could be done about it, absence of negligence because he did not owe a duty to the 3rd party and hence no duty was breached, also the shot was not negligently fired according to the facts, it just hit the 3rd party). It was a lawful act done by lawful means in a lawful manner. 12. Carter v Thomas (1891) QB 673-necessity-tresspass unreasonable interference 13. Kirk v Gregory 1876 1 Ex. D. 55 14. Metropolitan asylum district v hill 1881 6 AC 193-statutory authority overruled(asylum for mental and small pox set, vicinity area people said nuisance due to small pox patients, risk of disease, govt pleaded statutory authority, overruled, said that although govt has an obligation to set up centers but not to the cost of other peoples having problem and breach of their rights) 15. Hall vs. Brookaland auto racing (1933) 1 KB 205-VNFI upheld-(plaintiff spectating an auto race, got injured due to collision of two cars, fought for breach of duty, overruled and VNFI upheld as there was proper duty and care taken of , no compensation) 16. Padmavati v. Dugganaika- While the driver was taking the jeep for filling petrol in the tank; two strangers took lift in the jeep. Suddenly one of the bolts fixing the right front wheel to the axle gave way toppling the jeep. The two strangers were thrown out and sustained injuries, and one of them died as a consequence of the same. It was held that neither the driver nor his master could be made liable, first, because it was a case of sheer accident and, secondly, the strangers had voluntarily got into the jeep and as such, the principle of volenti non fit injuria was applicable to this case.