Law of 1orLs

W 1orLum
W Clvll wrong
W LvoluLlon ln Lngland
W LvoluLlon ln lndla
W luncLlons
W ueflnlLlon
W 8easons of lack of LorL llLlgaLlon ln lndla
W Comparlson wlLh oLher wrongs
W ulfferenL Lheorles of LorL
Law of LorLs ln lndlan legal sysLem
W 8emedles clvll crlmlnal
W ulfference 1)SLandard of proof 2) LlLle of case
W !udgmenLs r reporLed ln Law reporLs (PC/SC)
W CourL of record 2 aLLrlbuLes [udgmenLs reporLed
2) power Lo punlsh for conLempL
W Legal sysLems of world
W common law sysLem clvll law sysLem
W Adversarlal lnqulslLorlal
W passlve role of [udge !udge play acLlve role
W uncodlfled codlfled

W 1lLle of cases (clvll case lf v def) eg Paynes v

Parwood (crlmlnal case sLaLe v accused)
W ClLaLlon of case Al8 1968 SC 337
W Law reporLs (SC Al8 SCC SCALL) (PC uL1 u8!)
CLher speclallzed [ournals for moLor accldenL cases
maLrlmonlal case consumer cases eLc
W 1 wrong defamaLlon/nulsance 2 slmulLaneous
remedles
clvll courLs crlmlnal courLs
SC SC
PC(20 above) PC
Au!(320) Sesslon's !/u!
Clvll !udge(3 Lakh) MaglsLraLe/!M(3yrs/8/S)

W !udgmenL of courL raLlo decldendl oblLer

W Clvll remedy law of LorLs
W undersLandlng Lhe alm and funcLlons of LorL
compensaLlon someLlmes deLerrence of LorLfeasor
W ShlfLs burden from vlcLlm
W Meanlng of Lhe Lerm eLymologlcally
W ueflned by Lhe 2 auLhors
W Lmphasls on 3 elemenLs ln deflnlng LorL
W !urlsdlcLlon of Clvll courLs MC MehLa case
W PlsLory ln lndla
8lnClLLS(lmporLed) lnconslsLenL
wlLh lndlan condlLlons noL fared well
W 8ule ln 8ylands v lleLcher
W Crown lmmunlLy
W rlvlleges
W rlorlLy Lo crown debLs
lack of llLlgaLlon? reasons
W CulLural facLors
W sychology of fear
W Clvll crl remedles
W Lack of reporLlng
1orL and conLracL(dlfference)
contract
W lounded on consenL
W rlvlLy b/w Lhe parLles
W vlolaLlon of a rlghL ln tem
W naLure of duLy lmposed by law
owed Lo communlLy aL large
W MoLlve of breach of conLracL
lmmaLerlal
W uamages r only a compensaLlon
W never ln conLracL
W Alm prevenLlon of losses
tort
W lnfllcLed agalnsL or wlLhouL
consenL Lg assaulL
W no rlvlLy ls needed
W vlolaLlon of a rlghL ln etsooom
W uuLy flxed by wlll consenL of
parLles Cwed Lo deflnlLe persons
W MoLlve ofLen maLerlal
W 1orL Lo roperLy compensaLlon
1orL Lo person repuLaLlon feellngs
eLc aggravaLed damages
W Lxemplary damages
W Alm promlses made under conLracL
are performed
1orL and conLracL(slmllarlLy)dlfference
someLlmes blurred
contract
W uuLy eJ by ottes LxcepLlon
when duLy ls noL flxed by parLles
eg sLandard form conLracLs
sLaLuLory regulaLlon of
conLracLual Lerms lreedom Lo
conLracL ls conflned
W lundamenLal uuLy ln conLracL
Lo perform promlse comes lnLo
belng by mere force of law
@ort
W ln some cases Joty flxed by
parLles eg duLy of occupler
Lowards vlslLor ls more onerous
Lhan Lo Lrespasser 8eason
permlsslon/agreemenL/consenL
W uuLy Lowards etsoos qeoetolly
buL when ls breached duLy Lo
pay compensaLlon ls owed Lo a
deLermlnaLe person
ueflnlLlon of LorL
W uerlved from LaLln word 1ottom Meanlng LwlsLed
W ueflned as a speclal branch of law
W no sclenLlflc deflnlLlon negaLlve way of deflnlng
LorL
Jlnfleld
1orLlous llablllLy arlses ouL of breach of duLy
prlmarlly flxed by Lhe law Lhls duLy ls Lowards
persons generally lLs breach ls redresslble by an
acLlon for unllquldaLed damages#
ueflnlLlon crlLlclzed
W uuLy ln crlme ls also prlmarlly flxed by law
Lowards persons generally
W CLher Lypes of orders whlch can be passed ln
a sulL for LorL ln[uncLlons
Salmond
A clvll wrong for whlch Lhe remedy ls a common
law acLlon for unllquldaLed damages and whlch ls
noL excluslvely Lhe breach of conLracL or breach of
LrusL or oLher equlLable obllgaLlon#
All deflnlLlons emphasls on 3 elemenLs
W AcL or omlsslon ln vlolaLlon of law
W Legal ln[ury or damage
W Legal remedy by way of unllquldaLed damages
r|med|fference from torts
W naLure of wrong crlme ls consldered as wrong
agalnsL Lhe socleLy publlc rlghLs are breached
More serlous ln naLure
W arLles accused ls prosecuLed by sLaLe LlLle of a
crlmlnal case SLaLe v Accused
W SLandard of proof prosecuLlon has Lo prove
beyond reasonable doubL
W 1ypes of orders CullLy person ls punlshed/flne ls
lmposed Sec337 Cr c provlslon of
compensaLlon ouL of flne lmposed for Lhe
vlcLlms Lsp rape vlcLlms
W ,eos teo essenLlal lngredlenL of crlme rlnclple
relaLlng Lo lnLenLlon are sLrlcL LxcepLlon men rea
noL essenLlal for llablllLy SLrlcL llablllLy cases
Clvll and Crlmlnal wrongs
W rlmary Alm/purpose/luncLlon of crlmlnal
law deLerrence LxcepLlon ln some cases Lo
compensaLe vlcLlms ouL of flne (only anclllary)
W Alm of law of LorLs compensaLlon of vlcLlms
or Lhelr dependanLs
SlmllarlLles b/w crlme and wrong
W ln crlmlnal law also rlmary duLy noL Lo commlL an
offence for example murder llke any prlmary duLy
ln LorL ls o tem and lmposed by law
W Same wrong ls boLh a crlme a LorL from one
polnL of vlew crlme from anoLher polnL of vlew a
LorL Lg assaulL ls a vlolaLlon of a prlvaLe rlghL
and ls aL Lhe same Llme a menace Lo Lhe
socleLy(belng acL of vlolence) deflnlLlon and
defences are dlfferenL
W CompensaLlon ln crlmlnal law
W unlLlve damages ln LorL
1orL and conLracL(dlfference)
ontract
1 Iounded on consent
2 r|v|ty b]w the part|es
3 V|o|at|on of a r|ght |n personom
Duty f|xed by w||| consent of
part|es Cwed to def|n|te
persons
S Mot|ve of breach of contract
|mmater|a|
6 Damages r on|y compensatory
|n nature
7 Never |n contract
8 A|m prom|ses made under
contract are performed
@ort
1 Inf||cted aga|nst or w|thout
consent Lg assau|t
2 No r|v|ty |s needed
3 V|o|at|on of a r|ght |n rem
Nature of duty |mposed by |aw
owed to commun|ty at |arge
S Mot|ve |s mater|a| |n some
cases
6 @ort to roperty compensatory
@ort to person reputat|on
fee||ngs etc aggravated
damages
7 Lxemp|ary damages
8 A|m prevent|on of |osses
1orL and conLracL(slmllarlLles) dlfference
someLlmes blurred
contract
1 Duty ed by portes
Lxcept|on when duty |s not
f|xed by part|es eg standard
form contracts statutory
regu|at|on of contractua|
terms Ireedom to contract |s
conf|ned
2 Iundamenta| Duty |n contract
to perform prom|se comes |nto
be|ng by mere force of |aw
@ort
1 In some cases duty f|xed by
part|es eg duty of occup|er
towards v|s|tor |s more onerous
than to trespasser keason
perm|ss|on]agreement]consent
2 Duty towards persons qenero//y
but when |s breached duty to
pay compensat|on |s owed to a
determ|nate person
aw of tort or |aw of torts(2 equa||y acceptab|e approaches)
W|nf|e|d|aw of tort
1 It |s un|awfu| to cause harm |n
absence of [ust|f|cat|on (Lvery
act w|thout [ust|f|cat|on |s tort
|f |t causes |n[ury to anyone)
2 Genera| ku|es creat|ng ||ab|||ty
(burden of prov|ng h|s case
w|th|n except|ons]defences |s
on def(burden of d|sprov|ng)
3 8roader approach
ne|ps |n evo|v|ng new torts |n
a dynam|c soc|ety
Sa|mond|aw of torts
1 erta|n k|nd of harmfu| act|v|ty
(nom|nated) eg defamat|on
trespass etc |geon ho|es ||ke
cr|m|na| |aw
2 Genera| ku|es exempt|ng from
||ab|||ty(burden of mak|ng out
pr|ma fac|e case of tort |s on
the |a|nt|ff(burden of
prov|ng)
3 Narrower]pract|ca| approach
|ear p|cture of ex|st|ng torts
at a g|ven t|me(new p|geon
ho|es may be added)

W uefences general
W Ioleot ooo t ojoto
W 8equlremenLs for Lhe defence
W SmlLh v baker
uefences
W Meanlng
W Ioleot ooo t ojoto
W AcL of Cod
W SLaLuLory auLhorlLy
W rlvaLe defence
W lnevlLable accldenL

W resupposes 1orLlous acL on parL of def

W lf Lhe defence were noL Lhere Lhe acL would be a
LorL
W SLrlcLly noL a defence buL a rule of law regardlng
a plf's conducL whlch forms a bot to o sot
broughL by hlm based on anoLher's alleged
negllgence
W lf hlmself agreed Lo suffer loss(wlLh hls own wlll)
W ConLrlbuLory negllgence a negllgenL person
exerclses oo wll ot oll (oot o bot to o sot bot o
Jeeoce)
volenLl non flL ln[urla
W ConsenL
W Lxpress/lmplled
W ConsenL should be lree
W lraud
W Compulslon or MlsLaken lmpresslon
W undue lnfluence
W ceot ooo t ojoto
LssenLlal 8equlremenLs for Lhe defence
1 new
2 nowlng Lhe same agreed Lo suffer Lhe harm
W SmlLh v 8aker
W AcL should be Lhe same for whlch consenL was
glven
W lnformed consenL
W LlmlLaLlon on Lhe scope of Lhe docLrlne
1 8escue cases
2 8y unfalr conLracL Lerms AcL1977
3 unlawful acL
4 vlolaLlon of SLaLuLory provlslons
CNSLN@ |n Med rofess|on
W All klnds of medlcal LreaLmenL and surglcal
procedure lnvolve lnLerference wlLh human
body
W 1he lnLerference may be done by assaulL
baLLery and false lmprlsonmenL
W 1he LorL of baLLery ls deflned as Lhe
appllcaLlon of force Lo Lhe person of anoLher
wlLhouL lawful [usLlflcaLlon#

W Lvery human belng of adulL years and sound

mlnd has a rlghL Lo deLermlne whaL should be
done wlLh hls body and a surgeon who performs
an operaLlon wlLhouL hls paLlenL's consenL
commlLs an assaulL/baLLery for whlch he ls llable
ln damages
W 1he paLlenL's rlghL of selfdeLermlnaLlon
compeLenL adulL ls enLlLled Lo re[ecL a speclflc
LreaLmenL or all LreaLmenL or Lo selecL an
alLernaLlve form of LreaLmenL even lf Lhe declslon
may enLall rlsks as serlous as deaLh and may
appear mlsLaken ln Lhe eyes of Lhe medlcal
professlon or of Lhe communlLy

W uuLles of a docLor Lo explaln whaL he lnLends Lo

do and Lhe lmpllcaLlon lnvolved ln Lhe way ln
whlch a responslble docLor ln slmllar
clrcumsLances would have done
W 1he Consumer CourL ln lndla held Lhe surgeon
gullLy of negllgence for conducLlng sLerlllzaLlon
operaLlon durlng caesarlan secLlon wlLhouL
obLalnlng consenL parLlcularly when Lhere was
no urgency for sLerlllzaLlon operaLlon t Ioook
komot v ,ts otooooso 1999(3) C8 472
(er)
W omto kobl v t ltobbo ,oocbooJo(2008) 2
1

W ln lndla Lhe lndlvldual paLlenL's rlghL of self

deLermlnaLlon wlll flow from Lhe fundamenLal
rlghL enshrlned ln ArLlcle 21 of Lhe ConsLlLuLlon of
lndla
W Informed onsent
W 1he Lngllsh law recognlzes a duLy of Lhe docLor Lo
warn hls paLlenL of Lhe rlsk lnherenL ln Lhe
LreaLmenL whlch he ls proposlng and especlally
so lf Lhe LreaLmenL be surgery 1he cllnlcal
llmlLaLlon ls LhaL Lhe duLy ls conflned Lo maLerlal
rlsk

W docLrlne of lnformed consenL whlch orlglnaLed ln

unlLed SLaLes of Amerlca and found favour by Lhe
Supreme CourL of Canada
W 1he Lngllsh law Accordlng Lo Lhe ma[orlLy declslon of
Lhe Pouse of Lords ln Jowoy lL does noL recognlze
Lhe docLrlne of lnformed consenL
W Va||d|ty of onsent
W 1o be valld Lhe consenL musL be lnformed
W ConsenL noL valld lf obLalned by fraud or
mlsrepresenLaLlon as Lo Lhe naLure of Lhe procedure
ConsenL ls also vlLlaLed by undue lnfluence(Lhe case
of a prlsoner and prlson medlcal offlcer) or LhreaL of
vlolence A consenL obLalned when Lhe paLlenL ls
under sedaLlonlnvalldls noL volunLary

W @reatment of h||dren
W 1he naLural guardlan and ln hls absence Lhe
guardlan appolnLed by Lhe courL has Lhe legal
auLhorlLy Lo glve consenL for medlcal or surglcal
LreaLmenL on behalf of Lhe mlnor chlld SecLlon
24 of Lhe Cuardlans and Jards AcL 1890
W Lmergency @reatment
W lL ls clear LhaL ln cases of emergency or
unconsclousness all conslderaLlons regardlng
consenL wlll be seL aslde and docLors wlll do
whaLever ls necessary Lo save Lhe llfe of a paLlenL
lnfanL or adulL Lo save hlm from permanenL
dlsablllLy or from unnecessary paln and sufferlng
lnevlLable accldenL AC1 Cl CCu
W Cccasloned by forces of Lhe naLure
unconnecLed wlLh Lhe human agency or oLher
causes
W lnevlLable accldenL connecLed wlLh Lhe
human agency
AC1 Cl CCu ueflnlLlon
W An operaLlon of naLural forces so unexpecLed
LhaL no human foreslghL or sklll could
reasonably be expecLed Lo anLlclpaLe#
W Lxamples Lsunaml sLorm cloud bursL eLc
AC1 Cl CCuvlS MA!C8
W Could noL have b'n prevenLed by reasonable
care on parL of def
W 8efore acL of god can be admlLLed as an
excuse Lhe def musL hlmself have don e all
LhaL he was bound Lo do(by law)
W Cccasloned by forces of Lhe naLure
unconnecLed wlLh Lhe human agency or oLher
causes
W uoes noL lnclude cases of damage whlch could
have b'n prevenLed
Pas lL losL lLs uLlllLy
W SLrlcL llablllLy cases acL of god alone relevanL
W 8ule ln MC MehLa no form of lnevlLable
accldenL ls defence
W Pas now losL subsLanLlally all lLs uLlllLy
W Appllcable only ln oLher cases where rule ln
8ylands or M C MehLa ls noL applled by courL
SLaLuLory auLhorlLy
W lf leglslaLlon auLhorlzes Lhe dolng of an acL
(whlch lf unauLhorlzed would be a wrong) no
acLlon can be malnLalned for LhaL acL on Lhe
ground LhaL no courL can LreaL LhaL as a wrong
whlch Lhe leglslaLure has auLhorlzed conse
quenLly Lhe person who has susLalned a loss
by dolng of LhaL acL ls wlLhouL remedy unless
so far as Lhe leglslaLure has LhoughL lL proper
Lo provlde for compensaLlon
rlnclple phllosophy behlnd
AcL ls noL wrongful noL because lL ls for a
publlc purpose buL because lL ls auLhorlzed by
Lhe leglslaLure
Lesser prlvaLe rlghL rlghLs musL yleld Lo Lhe
greaLer publlc lnLeresL
SA exLends Lo noL merely Lo Lhe acL auLhorlzed
by Lhe sLaLuLe buL Lo all lnevlLable
consequences of LhaL acL
LlmlLaLlon on SA
1he powers conferred by Lhe leglslaLure
should by exerclsed wlLh [udgmenL and
cauLlon so LhaL no unnecessary damage ls
done
lf damage could have b'n prevenLed by
reasonable exerclse of powers conferred an
acLlon can be malnLalned omcbooJ om
Noqotom ce ol mlls vt ltJ v ,oocol
commssooet(194J) lL8 22 aL 339

lf Lerms of sLaLuLe not mperote buL

permlsslve Lhe powers conferred by lL should
be exerclsed n conormty wth Pt kqhts
screton musL be exerclsed wlLh due regard
Lo common tqbts o otbets
SLaLuLe should be consLrued strct/y ln case of
doubL should be consLrued n oour o
subject
8lghL of rlvaLe defence
W Cf body and properLy
W use of force ln proLecLlng oyooe
W Lven deaLh can be caused ln prlvaLe defence
W use of reasonable force proporLlonaLe Lo
ln[urles whlch Lhe aggressors r llkely Lo lnfllcL
W ommeocemeot of rlghL Lo rlvaLe defence
W Jhen lL oJs?
CLher llmlLaLlons
W Lveryone enLlLled Lo proLecL hls properLy buL
can noL for Lhls purpose do an acL whlch ls
ln[urlous Lo hls nelghbour
W ,otts v Noqeot def shoL aL Lhe dog when he
was runnlng An anlmal may be shoL where lL
ls poslng an lmmlnenL danger buL noL when
Lhere ls no such danger or Lhe danger ceased
1o [usLlfy shooLlng he musL be acLually
aLLacklng Lhe parLy
Means adopLed Lo proLecL properLy
musL be reasonable examples
W 8roken glasses or splkes on wall or flerce dog
maklng bunds Lo proLecL land from flood waLer
P 51n4k4M4YY4 v 6 M4n4L4k5nM4MM4 Al8 1938 A 103
[usLlfled
W ueadly lmplemenLs llke sprlng guns or llve wlre of
hlgh volLage Lo dlssuade Lrespassers un[usLlfled
(exceeded ln exerclse of vL defence)
W tJ v nolbtook (1828)
W betobo Cteqoty v tote O bot (1964)
mlsLake
W Jhen one commlLs an error ln undersLandlng
or undersLands wrongly
W A person may commlL mlsLake of law or a
mlsLake of facL
1 mlsLake of law
2 mlsLake of facL
mlsLake of law
W no defence qoototo jots ooo ecosot
W mlsLake of law even by honesL bellef def
llable
mlsLake of facL
W ls also usually no ground of exempLlon of
llablllLy ln LorL
W Lven Lhough mlsLake based on reasonable
honesL bellef yeL Lhe def llable ln LorL
W kee v Oooll moo(1887) def llable when he
whlle hunLlng ln a [ungle shoL dead Lhe lf Lo
whom he reasonably LhoughL Lo be a dear
W @tesoss o qooJs ot looJ under mlsLaken
bellef Laklng anoLher persons goods Lo be
one's own

W AucLloneer llable when lnnocenLly sold A's goods

ln Lhe honesL and reasonable bellef LhaL Lhey
belonged Lo 8 on whose lnsLrucLlons he sold hlm
oosolJoteJ o v otts(1892)
W eople deallng ln properLy ln goods( sale
purchase) aL Lhelr own perll
W uefamaLlon def llable for publlshlng a
defamaLory sLaLemenL under honesL bellef LhaL
no such person as lf ln facL exlsLed
LxcepLlons Lo Lhe above sLaLed general
rule
W o o cose molce s o esseotol oqteJeot o oo oct
mlsLake affords a compleLe defence examples a
mlsLaken prosecuLlon of an lnnocenL person noL
ln lLself acLlonable would lmpede Lhe adm of crl
[usLlce a prosecuLor lncurs no llablllLy unless he
acLed 'molcoosly ooJ wtboot teosoooble coose
W uefamaLlon ln some lnsLances of publlcaLlon
and prlvllege
W uecelL mlsLake ls a defence Lo an acLlon of decelL
necesslLy
W rlnclple defence of necesslLy can be successfully pleaded
lf an ln[ury Lo person or hls properLy ls necessary a greaLer
evll
W lnLenLlonal ln[ury Lo person/properLy may be caused yeL
Lhe def may noL be llable lf he plead defence of necesslLy
W negaLes llablllLy provlded LhaL Lhe occaslon of necesslLy
Joes oot otse tom tbe Je owo oeqlqeoce
W 1here r 3 classes of cases Lo whlch Lhe defence of necesslLy
applles
1 cases of publlc necesslLy 8ased on maxlm solos ool
soteme le welfare of people ls supreme law
2 cases of vL necesslLy
3 Cases where asslsLance ls glven Lo a 3
rd
person wlLhouL
hls consenL as a maLLer of necesslLy
ulfferenL from prlvaLe defence
W vL def Parm lnfllcLed on clalmanL was
provoked by acLual or LhreaLen lllegal wrong
on parL of clalmanL
W necesslLy noL provoked by clalmanL whaL
def dld may be enLlrely for Lhe good of oLher
people and noL necessarlly for proLecLlon of
hlmself or hls properLy
Cases of ub necesslLy
W Pouses on flre r pulled down Lo prevenL lLs
spread Lo oLher properLy
W 1hrowlng goods overboard Lo llghLen a boaL ln
a sLorm
W vlllages r asked Lo vacaLe Lhelr land and
houses ln war Llme
cases of vL necesslLy
W vL necesslLy may also glve rlse Lo defence of
necesslLy
W Olqo @ells cose ln Lhe conLexL of argumenL LhaL
pavemenL dwellers of 8ombay had ln occupylng
pavemenLs Lhough ouL of sheer helplessness
commlLLed Lhe LorL of Lrespass SC sald o/low o
totts oecessty s o loosble Jeeoce wbcb
eooble o etsoo to escoe loblty oo tbe qtoooJ
tbot tbe oct comlooeJ o t oecessoty to teveot
qteotet Jomoqe otet olo to bmsel#
ulfference of law ln lndla Lngland
W Lngland lL does noL furnlsh a defence Lo an acLlon
for Lrespass broughL agalnsL homeless persons who
enLer and squaL ln unoccupled premlses
W lndla lL ls a defence Olqo @ells cose (reasons why
sLaLe can noL go for acLlon ln Lrespass duLy u/arL 21
3941Lo glve publlc asslsLance and Lo provlde
humane llvlng condlLlons
W oJoo oqb v New elb ,oocol ommttee SC
whlle upholdlng Lhe fundamenLal rlghL of Lhe
hawkers u/ArL 19(1)(g) Lo Lrade on sLreeL pavemenL
sub Lo regulaLlons negaLed Lhe rlghL Lo occoy ooy
ottcolot loce on Lhe pavemenL
lmp cases
W Cope v Sharpe
W lrk v Cregory
W CarLer v 1homas
W Olqo @ells cose
W oJoo oqb v New elb ,oocol
ommttee
negllgence generally
W Carelessness
W lnadverLence
W lndlfference
W no lnLenLlon
W 1rled Lo be careful buL care Laken was
lnadequaLe
negllgence
W ls breach of duLy caused by omlsslon Lo do
someLhlng whlch a reasonable man gulded by
Lhose conslderaLlons whlch ordlnarlly regulaLe
Lhe conducL of human affalrs would do or dolng
someLhlng whlch a prudenL and reasonable man
would noL do# lytb v tmoqbom wotetwotks
o ltJ
W Law Lakes no cognlzance of carelessness ln
absLracL (Lhere can be no llablllLy unless Lhere ls
breach of any duLy
LssenLlal lngredlenLs
W uuLy Lo care
W 8reach
W uamage Lo lf

W JhaL klnd of duLy naLure?

W Soclal legal moral?
W Jhen negllgence acLlonable? Jhen Lhere ls
breach of duLy on parL of def whlch resulLs ln
damage Lo lf
W lallure Lo care where duLy exlsLs
W Jhere duLy exlsLs?
LxlsLence of duLy
W uepends on teosoooble oteseeoblty o ojoty to P/
W oooqboe v Steveosoo
W A useful LesL Lo declde culpablllLy ls Lo deLermlne
whaL a reasonable man would have foreseen and
behaved under Lhe clrcumsLances (stooJotJ o o
teosoooble moo)
W A8SLnLCL Cl ln1Ln1lCn
W Pow much care accordlng Lo Lhe magnlLude of rlsk
eg loaded gun or mere sLlck
8easonable foreseeablllLy noL remoLe
posslblllLy
W uuLy ls Lo guard agalnsL probablllLles raLher
Lhan bare posslblllLles
W otJoo v notcoott voqtoo(1932) noL
bound Lo guard agalnsL fanLasLlc posslblllLles
W uuLy 1o lf 8ourhlll v ?oung(1943)
new duLy slLuaLlons
W new duLy slLuaLlons can be recognlzed due Lo
conLlnulng lnfluence of soclal economlc
pollLlcal conslderaLlons(oLher Lhan Lhose
declded on basls of exlsLlng precedenLs
W Ioy lom olt ose oooqboe v teveosoo
,l@ v osoot o oos v looJoo otooqb
o ,ettoo Iooot ooks ltJ
LxlsLence of duLy
W uuLy of care essenLlal for llablllLy ln negllgence
W normally C of duLy declded on exlsLlng
precedenLs
W 8uL lL ls well accepLed LhaL new duLy
slLuaLlons can be recognlzed( prlvllege of
yesLerday may become duLy of Loday Madhya
radesh 81C v 8aanLl 8al uonoghue v
sLevenson anns v london borough of merLon
[unlor books lLd
loreseeablllLy and proxlmlLy
W 1he rlnclple was lald down ln oooqboe v Steveosoo
W persons so closely and dlrecLly affecLed so LhaL l oughL Lo
have Lhem ln conLemplaLlon duLy Lo avold acLs or
omlsslons whlch one can reasonably foresee would be
llkely Lo ln[ure anoLher#
W 8uL Lhls duLy ls noL owed Lo everyone who ls llkely Lo be
ln[ured buL only Lo persons who are so closely dlrecLly
affecLed by one's acL LhaL lL ls reasonable for one Lo have
Lhem ln conLemplaLlon
W 1hls ls prlnclple of proxlmlLy whlch refers Lo such a
8LLA1lCn b/w parLles as renders lL [usL reasonable LhaL
llablllLy ln negll may be lmposed(so relaLlon of conLracL noL
requlred buL relaLlon of foreseeablllLy and proxlmlLy ls
requlred for negllgence)
uevelopmenL of law relaLlng Lo new
duLy slLuaLlon case by case
W Pedley 8yrne v Peller parLners(1964) PL
W Agaln a new duLy slLuaLlon was recognlzed
Jhen parLy seeklng lnformaLlon from parLy
possessed of speclal sklll LrusLs hlm Lo
exerclse due care lf negllgenceLhough honesL
may glve rlse Lo acLlon for damages
W earce L Sphere of duLles acc Lo demands of
socleLy
Pome offlce v uorseL ?achL co lLd
W 8orsLal Lralnees escaped one nlghL due Lo
negllgence of borsLal offlcers who conLrary Lo
orders were ln bed Lralnees caused damage
Lo yachL of lf
W C wheLher ln[ury foreseeable? Any duLy?
W rlnclple Lrend ls noL Lo ask wheLher new
polnL ln lssue ls covered by auLhorlLy buL
wheLher recognlzed prlnclple applles Lo lL
Anns v London borough of
MerLon(1977) PL
W Case of pure eco loss was Lherefore laLer on
overruled
W subsequenL [udgmenLs explalned polnLed
ouL varlous llmlLaLlons Lo Lhe general prlnclple
sLaLed ln Lhls case 8uL Lo appreclaLe Lhe
developmenL of law deslrable Lo noLlce Lhe
case
Anns v London borough of
MerLon(1977) PL
W lfs were lessees(occuplers) 1he owners were also
bullders were 1
sL
defs 1he local auLhorlLy was 2
nd
def
case ln 1970 sLrucLural movemenLs began Lo occur
resulLlng ln cracks ln Lhe walls slopplng of floors eLc
plf's case was LhaL Lhese were due Lo lnadequaLe
foundaLlon(less deep Lhan as shown ln approved plans
LhaL local auLhorlLy was negllgenL ln noL lnspecLlng
1he AcL enabled Lhe auLhorlLy Lo conLrol supervlse
Lhe consLrucLlon ln parLlcular foundaLlon
W PL held LhaL Lhough Lhe AcL dld noL lmpose a Joty Lo
lnspecL buL conferred Jsctetoooty owet buL Lhls
lLself dld noL exclude Lhe exlsLence of Lhe common law
duLy Lo reasonable care
oos LesL/prlnclple
W 1hrough Lrllogy of cased Lhe poslLlon has reached LhaL
ln order Lo esLabllsh LhaL a duLy of care arlses ln a
parLlcular slLuaLlon lL ls noL necessary Lo brlng Lhe
facLs of LhaL slLuaLlon wlLhln Lhose of prevlous ln whlch
a duLy of care has b'n held Lo exlsL raLher Lhe C has Lo a
be approached from 2 sLages
1 8elaLlonshlp of proxlmlLy nelghborhood b/w
wrongdoer who suffered damage
2 ollcy conslderaLlons wheLher Lhere r any
conslderaLlons whlch oughL Lo negaLlve or reduce
llablllLy
Case ln whlch oos was dlsLlngulshed [usL
reasonable lncremenLal approach
W beote oos case flnally overruled came up for
conslderaLlon before PL C ln laLer cases whlch
have explalned Lhe 2 sLages LesL lald down ln
oos polnLed ouL lLs llmlLaLlons
W Covernor of eabody donaLlons fund v slr
Llndsay arklnson passage from speech of
Jllberforce ln anns [udgmenL noL of deflnlLlve
characLer ln deLermlnlng JheLher duLy was
lncumbenL on def lL ls maLerlal Lo Lake ln Lo
conslderaLlon wheLher lL ls jost teosoooble tbot
t sboolJ be so
Covernor of eabody donaLlons fund
v slr Llndsay arklnson(facLs)
W Approved plan relaLlng Lo dralnage was noL adhered Lo
durlng bulldlng operaLlon Local auLhorlLy became aware of
bullders non compllance of plan buL Look no acLlon LaLer
dralnage was found Lo have subsLanLlally falled had Lo be
reconsLrucLed 8ulldlng owners sued local auLhorlLy alleglng
LhaL lL was ln breach of duLy
W PL Cb[ecL of sLaLuLory provlslons was Lo safeguard
occupers o houses agalnsL dangers Lo Lhelr healLh from
defecLlve dralnage noL Lo safeguard owners agalnsL loss
resulLlng from Lhelr fallure
W Anns case was of subsequenL owner occupers noL of
bulldlng owner who was hlmself responslble for non
compllance of AcL
Curran v norLhern lreland Pouslng
Asso LLd(1987)PL
W Anns case agaln dlsLlngulshed
W Approval of CranL by houslng execuLlve
execuLlve had no power Lo conLrol over
bulldlng operaLlon once approval for granL
was glven
W AccepLed explanaLlon ln eabody case held
LhaL lL would noL be ot teosoooble to
mose Joty on Lhe execuLlve
?uen um?en v ALLorney Cen Cf
Pongkong
W Speech of Jllberforce was agaln explalned
W Comm of deposlL Laklng cos havlng regulaLory
power under an ordlnance ln regard Lo refuslng
or revoklng reglsLraLlon dld noL owe any duLy of
care Lo Lhe deposlLors who losL Lhelr deposlLs as
Lhe co was run fraudulenLly
W 8eason absence of close dlrecL relaLlonshlp of
proxlmlLy no day Lo day coottol over dayLoday
managemenL
uavls v 8adcllffe
W ?uen kun followed
W rlnclple low sboolJ Jevelo coteqotes o
oeqlqeoce nc/ement/y by ono/oqy wth
decde coteqores
ramod MalhoLra v uCl(2004)
W ?uen uavls were followed ln Lhls lndlan case
W 88l granLed a llcence u/Lhe banklng regulaLlons acL 1949 Lo
Slkklm banklng lLd (S8L) funcLlonlng ln Slkklm Lo open a
branch ln uelhl ln 1997 Lhough an lnspecLlon by 88l had
found several shorLcomlngs deflclencles ln lLs funcLlonlng
1he deposlLors of Lhls bank were allowed only 9 of Lhelr
deposlLs ln u/amalgamaLlon scheme by whlch S8L was
amalgamaLed wlLh u8l ueposlLors sued 88l for negllgence ln
granLlng permlsslon Lo S8l CourL relaLlon b/w parLles noL
such LhaL lL would be [usL reasonable Lo lmpose llablllLy on
88l
Plll v Chlef ConsLable(1988)PL
W MoLher of lasL vlcLlm of murderer sued chlef consLable
for negllgence ln lnvesLlng and noL apprehendlng Lhe
crlmlnal earller for earller offences
W PL CC dld noL have general duLy of care Lo lndlvldual
members of publlc Lo ldenLlfy apprehend an
unknown crlmlnal even lf lL ls foreseeable LhaL harm
was llkely Lo be caused(lf ln cusLody??)
W t wos oqoo loJ Jowo tbot oreseeob/ty o /e/y
horm s not n tse/ o sucent test o /ob/ty n
neq/qence
Caparo lndusLrles(1990)
W low sboolJ Jevelo oovel coteqotes o
oeqlqeoce octemeotolly ooJ by oooloqy wtb
estoblsbeJ coteqotes totbet tboo mossve
eteosoo o tbe tmo oce Joty testtooeJ
ooly by oJeooble coosJetotoos wbcb
ooqbt to oeqotve loblty
W Murphy v `8renLwood overruled anns as
belng one purely ln domaln of economlc loss

W roxlmlLy llmlLs Lhe persons Lo whom duLy ls owed

W roxlmlLy prlnclple reallsLlcally refers Lo such a relaLlon
b/w parLles as renders t jost teosoooble tbot loblty
o oeq moy oe moseJ
W ltomty Joes oot meoo byscol tomty oooqboe
v teveosoo ,clooqblo v Otoo oot nll v yoooq
W e boJ close coottol o tbe ctcomstooces wbcb leJ
to tbe ojotes Joty
W Jlnfleld 1he C of duLy ulLlmaLely depends on courL's
assessmenL of whaL ls [usL falr reasonable buL LhaL q
ls asked noL ln conLexL of [usLlce as b/w Lhe parLlcular
parLles of Lhe case buL o tbe cootet o oll coses o tbot
tye Co audlLors Lhough llable Lo shareholders for
negllgenL audlLlng noL llable Lo Lhose proposlng Lo
lnvesL ln Lhe coLhaL declslon wlll apply Lo all fuLure
cases of Lhe same klnd 8arreL v Lnfleld
W 1esL of proxlmlLy oteseeoblty o o teosoooble moo
roxlmlLy noL sufflclenL ln negllgence
W lf Lhere ls Lhe requlslLe degree of proxlmlLy a
duLy may sLlll be denled lf ln Lhe courL's vlew
Lhe lmposlLlon of llablllLy would noL be falr
[usL reasonable
ollcy conslderaLlons
W Are maLerlal ln llmlLlng Lhe persons who can
clalm LhaL a duLy of care noL Lo cause
economlc loss was owed Lo Lhem by a
LorLfeasor
W Lg due Lo A's negllgence 8 a palnLer ls
ln[ured unable Lo supply hls palnLlng Lo hls
cusLomers wlLh whom he has conLracLs noL
only 8 buL hls cusLomers suffer oteseeoble
economlc loss can cusLomers sue A?
ollcy conslderaLlons
W ln noL lmposlng a duLy of care on pollce whlle
exerclslng Lhelr sLaLuLory duLles of
lnvesLlgaLlng a crlme
W on local auLhorlLles ln relaLlon Lo Lhelr
sLaLuLory duLles
W and ln *nervous shock led Lo make dlsLlncLlon
b/w personal ln[ury psychlaLrlc ln[ury
resulLlng ln resLrlcLed area wlLhln whlch
damages can be clalmed
8elaLlon b/w 'oteseeoblty
tomty ooJ jost and teosoooble
W ulscussed ln lO (*633) lndeed lL ls
dlfflculL Lo reslsL a concluslon LhaL whaL have
been LreaLed as Lhree separaLe requlremenLs are
aL leasL ln mosL cases ln facL merely faceLs of Lhe
same Lhlng for ln some cases Lhe degree of
oteseeoblty ls such LhaL lL ls from LhaL alone
LhaL Lhe requlslLe tomty can be deduced
whllsL ln oLhers Lhe absence of LhaL essenLlal
relaLlonshlp can mosL raLlonally be aLLrlbuLed
slmply Lo Lhe courLs vlew LhaL lL would noL be
ot ooJ teosoooble Lo hold Lhe defendanL
responslble#
concluslons
A 4 requlremenLs Lo esLabllsh a duLy of care 1 foreseeablllLy of
harm 2 proxlmlLy ln relaLlonshlp whlch lmplles LhaL 3 lL ls
[usL reasonable LhaL duLy should exlsL and LhaL 4 pollcy
conslderaLlons do noL negaLlve Lhe exlsLence of duLy lf 1
sL
3
condlLlons r saLlsfled pollcy conslderaLlons would rarely llmlL
classes of cases
8 uuLy of care would arlse ln excepLlonal clrcumsLances for
*acLs of 3
rd
parLles eco losses *omlsslons
C roposlLlon (A) can noL be used as a means of reopenlng
lssues seLLled by auLhorlLaLlve declslons lL deals essenLlally
wlLh Lhe approach Lo a novel Lype of facLual slLuaLlon noL
covered by auLhorlLles
u Sub[ecL Lo whaL ls sLaLed ln C proposlLlon A can glve rlse Lo
developlng new caLegorles of duLy of care 8u1 Lhls should
be done lncremenLally by analogy wlLh declded cases
negllgence duLy breach damage
|ack of care when act|onab|e
A@ICNA8L
1 Jhen duLy exlsLs
2 Jhen exlsLs??
3 Jhere def could have
foreseen ln[ury Lo lf by hls
lack of care ('teosooobly
oteseeoble ojoty)
4 nLJ duLy slLuaLlons can
be recognlzed by Lhe courL
when lL ls [usL
reasonable Lo do so
oooqboe v Steveosoo
NC@ A@ICNA8L
1 Jhen no duLy exlsLs
2 Jhen does noL exlsL??
3 Jhen ln[ury noL foreseeable
*ootbll v yoooq
4 new duLy slLuaLlons can be
recognlzed by Lhe courL ooly
Oo tbe loes o JecJeJ coses
3 Jhen damage remoLe
(loreseeable ln[ury doesnL
mean remoLe posslblllLy
6 Jhen no damage Lo lf
8reach And uamage
8reach
W Jhen requlslLe care accordlng
Lo sLandard ls noL Laken
W lallure Lo aLLaln Lhe sLandard
of care prescrlbed by law
Iocob ,otbews
W 8equlslLe care ??
W nelLher Lhe hlghesL nor very
low degree of care
W Acc Lo magnlLude of rlsk Lg
loaded gun sLlck
Damage
W Is resu/t o neq/qence o
the de
W roxlmlLy b/w negllgence of
def and damage Lo Lhe lf
W uef oot llable for oll
(lnflnlLe) consequence
W uef llable only for
foreseeable harms
W 8reach of duLy
W uuLles of professlonals esp medlcal
professlonals u/common law u/sLaLues
governlng Lhe professlon sLandard of care
W Case Lo read for Lomorrow narslmaha 8ao
Case case negllgence u/clvll law
8reach
W Anderson ln lytb v tmoqbom wotetwotks ltJ
W Jhen requlslLe care accordlng Lo sLandard ls noL
Laken
W lallure Lo aLLaln Lhe sLandard of care prescrlbed
by law Iocob ,otbews
W 8equlslLe care ?? SLandard Lhe conducL of a
reasonable man
W nelLher Lhe hlghesL nor very low degree of care
W Acc Lo magnlLude of rlsk Lg loaded gun sLlck
AmounL of care varles/facLors
responslble for varlance
W Lmergency can'L expecL perfecL presence of mlnd
W ConslderaLlon kloos ,ttlebocbett v ost oJoo
notels ltJ
W lmporLance of purpose Lo be achleved speed
llmlL no chemlcal hazardous lndusLrles
W *Plghly skllled persons
W Carrylng dangerous goods edged Lools bars of
lron umbrella
*Plghly skllled persons
W Lawyers docLors archlLecLs audlLors oLhers
are lncluded ln caLegory of persons professlng
some speclal sklll or skllled persons generally
W ln general a professlonal man owes Lo hls
cllenL a duLy ln LorL as well as ln conLracL Lo
exerclse reasonable care ln glvlng advlce or
performlng servlces
W SLandard of care sklll do Lhey assure Lhelr
cllenLs of resulLs??
Llable for negllgence on 1 of Lhe 2
flndlngs
1 elLher he was noL possessed of Lhe requlslLe sklll
whlch he professed Lo have possessed or
2 he dld noL exerclse wlLh reasonable compeLence ln
Lhe glven case Lhe sklll whlch he dld possess
W SLandard Lo be applled for [udglng wheLher Lhe
person charged has b'n negllgenL or noL would be
LhaL of otJooty cometeot etsoo eetcsoq otJooty
skll o tbot toessoo
W noL necessary for every professlonal hlghesL
experLlse ln LhaL branch(lowesL sLandard LhaL would
be regarded as accepLable)
uuLles of medlcal professlonals
1 under sLaLuLes
2 uuLles under common law
W uuLy of care sklll
W SLandard of care sklll
W 8olam's LesL
W uuLles ln medlco legal cases
W rofesslonal secrecy prlvlleged communlcaLlon
dlsclosure for proLecLlng lnLeresL pub/prlvaLe
W 1o Lake consenL
uuLy of care sklll
Laxman 8apu Codbole 3 sLages of
duLles
W AL Lhe Llme of decldlng wheLher Lo underLake
Lhe case
W uuLy of care ln decldlng whaL LreaLmenL Lo
glve
W uuLy of care ln admlnlsLerlng LhaL LreaLmenL
8olam's LesL
W 1he LesL ls Lhe sLandard of Lhe otJooty sklleJ
moo eetcsoq ooJ toessoq to bove tbot
secol skll A man need noL possess Lhe
hlghesL experL sklll lL ls well esLabllshed law
LhaL t s soceot be eetcses tbe otJooty
skll o oo otJooty cometeot moo eetcsoq
tbot ottcolot ott

W A pracLlLloner musL brlng Lo hls Lask a reasonable degree of sklll and

knowledge and musL exerclse a reasonable degree of care Netbet
tbe vety bqbest oot o vety low Jeqtee o cote ooJ cometeoce
joJqeJ o tbe lqbt o tbe ottcolot ctcomstooces o eocb cose s
wbot tbe low tepotes and a person ls noL llable ln negllgence
because someone else of greaLer sklll and knowledge would have
prescrlbed dlfferenL LreaLmenL or operaLed ln a dlfferenL way nor ls
he gullLy of negllgence lf he has acLed ln accordance wlLh a pracLlce
accepLed as proper by a responslble body of medlcal men skllled ln
LhaL parLlcular arL even Lhough a body of adverse oplnlon also
exlsLed among medlcal men uevlaLlon from normal pracLlce ls noL
necessarlly evldence of negllgence
W 1o esLabllsh llablllLy on LhaL basls lL musL be shown (1) LhaL Lhere ls a
usual and normal pracLlce (2) LhaL Lhe defendanL has noL adopLed lL
and (3) LhaL Lhe course ln facL adopLed ls one no professlonal man of
ordlnary sklll would have Laken had he been acLlng wlLh ordlnary
care(nolsbotys lows o oqlooJ)
Medlcal negllgence
W narslmaha 8ao Case u/clvll law
W lMA v ShanLha u/consumer proLecLlon acL
W !acob MaLhews case u/ crlmlnal law
Clvll Crlmlnal negllgence
W LlablllLy for negllgence may arlse ln
Clvll(conLracL 1orL 1he Consumer roLecLlon
AcL) as well as crlmlnal law
W Crlmlnal negllgence Sec 304A of lC
W oJtews v tectot o loblc ltosecotoos
W yeJ kbot v tote o kotootoko(1980)
W t otesb Coto v Covt o N@ o elb
W Iocob ,otbews cose
roof of negllgence es so lopotot
W Cen prlnclple lf Lo prove Lhe negllgence on parL of
Lhe def
W LxcepLlon def Lo dlsprove Lhe maxlm
W es so lopotot Lhlng speaks for lLself
W 8ule of evldence noL of law !acob MaLhews case
W resumpLlon of negllgence
W 2 essenLlals for lnvoklng Lhe maxlm 1 Applles when
accldenL explalns only one Lhlng LhaL ls LhaL accldenL
could noL ordlnarlly occur buL for(unless) Lhe
negllgence of Lhe def
2 1haL Lhe cause of mlschlef was aL Lhe maLerlal Llme
excluslvely under Lhe conLrol managemenL of Lhe def
A few Cases where maxlm applled
W AchuLrao P hodwa v SLaLe of MaharashLra
W MCu of uelhl v SubhagwanLl
ulfferenL CaLegorles of defs from
polnL of vlew of sLandard of care
W Crdlnary man LesL of reasonable prudenL
person
W Chlldren lunaLlcs lnLoxlcaLed (lnvolunLarlly)
ulfferenL CaLegorles of lfs from polnL of
vlew of stooJotJ o cote whlch should be
Laken Lowards Lhem
W normal persons
W Chlldren lunaLlcs physlcally challenged eg
warnlng Lhrough noLlce ls noL sufflclenL for bllnd
person ln case a manhole lefL open by local body
Lhough such warnlng enough for normal person
W very dellcaLe ersons eqqsbell skoll tole
ConLrlbuLory negllgence
W lf by wanL of care conLrlbuLes Lo damage caused
by negll of def
W uef Lo prove
W 8ural 1ransporL Servlce v 8ezlum 8lbl
W Susma MlLra v M S 8C
W Agya aur v epsu 8oad 1ransp Corpn
W Pow far Lhls ls a defence? PlsLorlcal developmenL
W lnlLlally sulL falled
W Modlfled by lasL opporLunlLy rule

W uavls v Mann
W lurLher deflned ln 8rlLlsh Columbla elecLrlc co
(consLrucLlve lasL opporLunlLy rule)
W llnally law reform conLrlbuLory negllgence acL
1943
Law 8eform ConLrlbuLory negllgence
AcL 1943
W person suffers damage parLly of hls own
negll parLly of any oLher c|a|m sha|| not be
defeated by reason of faulL of Lhe person
sufferlng buL damages sha|| be reduced Lo
such an exLenL as Lhe courL Lhlnks [usL havlng
regard Lo hls share ln responslblllLy#
ApporLlonmenL of damages ln lndla
W no cenLral leglslaLlon
W erala LorL ( mlscellaneous rovlslons AcL) 1976
W uocLrlne lollowed on Lhe llnes of Lhe 1943 acL
W 8ural 1ransporL Servlce v 8ezlum 8lbl reduced by 30
W vldya uevl v MS81C 1/3 of damages awarded due Lo
hls own negll Lo Lhe exLenL of 2/3
W MCC8 v Laxman lyer
W AcL applles when lfs neg conLrlbuLes Lo tbe Jomoqes
noL necessarlly Lo Lhe accldenL lor conLrlbuLory neg lf
need noL be ln breach of duLy Lo def
neg and conLrlbuLory neg
W 8reach of legal duLy of care
W uoes noL mean breach of any duLy
W lallure by a person Lo use reasonable care for
safeLy of hlmself of hls properLy
neg and conLrlbuLory neg
W C 8ALA8lSPnAn ! ln ramodkumar
8aslkbhal !haver v armasey unvargl 1ak And
CLhers
W negllgence ordlnarlly means breach of a legal
duLy Lo care buL when used ln Lhe expresslon
conLrlbuLory negllgence# lL does not mean
breach of any duty lL only means Lhe fallure by a
person Lo use reasonable care for Lhe safeLy of
elLher hlmself or hls properLy so LhaL he becomes
blameworLhy ln parL as an auLhor of hls own
wrong#
vldya uevl v MS81C(1974)
W 9 now comlng Lo Lhe damages Lhe deceased aL Lhe Llme of hls deaLh was aged 28
years Pe lefL behlnd a wldow aged 18 and an lnfanL son aged slx monLhs A Plndu
wldow wlLh a chlld has llLLle chance of remarrlage 1he wldows dependency wlll
lasL for Lhe whole of Lhe remalnder of Lhe worklng llfe of Lhe deceased 1he lnfanL
son wlll conLlnue Lo be dependenL for aL leasL 20 years 1he deceased was a
mechanlc 1he moLorcycle whlch he was rldlng had ln facL been recelved by hlm
for repalrs Accordlng Lo Lhe evldence of Lhe wldow Lhe deceased was also havlng
a slde buslness of selllng mllk and foodgralns and ln all he was earnlng 8upees
600/ per monLh 1hls appears Lo be somewhaL an exaggeraLlon ln our oplnlon
Lhe deceaseds neL earnlngs were approxlmaLely 8s 230/ per monLh Pe musL
have been spendlng 8s 130/ per monLh on hls wlfe and chlld 1he annual
dependency Lhus comes Lo ks 1800/ Applylng Lhe mulLlpller of 18 Lhe LoLal
compensaLlon payable Lo Lhe dependenLs had Lhe deceased hlmself noL parLlally
conLrlbuLed Lo Lhe accldenL would have worked ouL Lo kupees 3200/ 8uL as
Lhe deceased was hlmself Lo blame for Lhe accldenL Lo Lhe extent of twoth|rd lL
would be falr and [usL to reduce the damages to ks 10000/and Lhls ls Lhe
amounL whlch Lhe appellanLs are enLlLled Lo geL from Lhe respondenLs
lmp 8ules regardlng conLrlbuLory neg
W no breach of duLy on parL of lf dld noL care
of hls own safeLy
W 1hls carelessness conLrlbuLed Lo damage#
W lf allowed Lo Lake alLernaLlve rlsk Paynes v
Parwood
W LlmlLaLlons of Cn chlldren physlcally
challenged persons moLor vehlcle acL 1939(s
92A) no faulL llablllLy rescue cases
lacL slLuaLlon
W negllgence of drlvers of Lruck drlver of [eep
accldenLpassenger slLLlng on fronL seaL of [eep
Lhrown ouL kllled of negllgence of 2 drlvers
Lruck [eep7323 SulL by wlfe of deceased
agalnsL boLh drlvers(defs) CourL found deceased
responslble for conLrlbuLory Lo Lhe exLenL of 10
uamages clalmed 99000
W JhaL should be Lhe amounL of damages?
JheLher a def can be made llable Lhe whole
amounL of decree?
ComposlLe neg
W Jhen neg of 2 or more resulLs ln same
damage
W Law ln Lngland
W Law ln lndla
W naLure of llablllLy
W ulfference b/w Cn ComposlLe neg
W lf frlendly provlslon
PypoLheLlcal lacL slLuaLlon
W A plck pockeL puLs hls hand ln Lhe pockeL of a
person ln order Lo plck pockeL Lhere was a
gun ln Lhe pockeL of deceased Lrlgger goes
off person dles Jlfe of deceased flles sulL
agalnsL Lhe plck pockeL ueclde hls llablllLy
3 quesLlons ln an AcLlon for uamages
W Jas Lhe damage caused by def's wrongful acL
causaLlon
W Jas lL remoLe remoLeness of damage
W JhaL would be amounL of compensaLlon
measure of damage
causaLlon
W uef llable for any damage whlch ls Lhe dlrecL
consequence of hls unlawful acL wheLher he
lnLended Lhe consequences or noL