CASE LAWS

TORTS

Raymond v. Honey 1983

Convicted individuals retain all their civil rights unless expressly or by necessary implication taken away.

DBY Patnaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1974)

Even though inmates are deprived of their rights to profession and right to move freely they still posses rights like right to own property and right to life and personal liberty (unless explicitly barred by law)

R v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison (1990)

Prisoner assaulted during segregation. Court held that reasonable force may be used, but excessive force and or for malicious purpose gives rise to civil liability. Imprisonment doesn't remove right to bodily integrity.

Smt. Kewal Pati vs State of UP (1995)

A convict was killed by another due to negligence of jail authorities. SC awarded ₹1 lakh compensation under Article 21 — right to life applies even in custody.

Savage v. South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2008)

Psychiatric patient escaped and died by suicide. Court held state has "operational obligation" under Article 2 ECHR to protect detained lives.

Rabone v. Pennine Care NHS Trust (2012)

Voluntary psychiatric patient allowed home leave committed suicide. Court held Article 2 duty applies even to informal patients under state care — state liable for breach of duty to protect life.

Residual Rights of Prisoners

Imprisonment limits liberty but not all fundamental rights — dignity and justice

R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Daly (2001)

Prison officers examined legal correspondence during cell searches. Held: breach of right to confidential legal communication. Prisoners retain rights to (1) court access, (2) legal advice, (3) confidential legal communication.

R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1999)

Prisoner's letters to journalist stopped. Held: prisoners retain freedom of expression subject to discipline/security — can communicate to expose wrongful conviction.

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2005)

MP undertrial sought to attend Parliament. Held: may be escorted to take oath but remains under custody — political rights persist but balanced with prison discipline.

Hague v. Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison (1991)

Prisoner unlawfully segregated. Held: not false imprisonment since detention itself lawful. Remedy via judicial review, not tort.

R (James) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2010]

Delay in parole reviews. Held: breach of admin duty but not false imprisonment — detention lawful.

R (Faulkner) v. Secretary of State for Justice [2013]

Parole delay over a year. Held: entitled to damages for mental distress — not false imprisonment but violation of administrative fairness.

Scotland v. South African Territories Ltd. (1917)

Defined "alien enemy" — anyone of enemy nationality or residing/carrying on business in enemy territory.

Porter v. Freudenberg (1915)

British citizen in enemy territory treated as alien enemy. Residence/business, not nationality, determines status.

De Wahl v. Braune (1856)

German subject in enemy territory cannot sue in British courts unless under given permission or is under some treaty pass aliance or govt protection

Daimler Co. Ltd. v. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. (1916)

English company controlled by Germans treated as having "enemy character." Corporate control determines status.

Johnstone v. Pedlar (1921)

Alien enemy lawfully residing in UK can sue — lawful residence removes enemy status.

Section 83, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (India)

Alien enemies with government permission or alien friends can sue in Indian courts; those without permission or residing in enemy states cannot.

Manaseeh Film Co. v. Gemini Picture Circuit 1944

Business in enemy country without license = alien enemy → cannot sue in Indian courts.

Case: Church v. Church (1983)

Facts: Wife sued her husband for battery after physical assault.
Held: Court awarded damages — possible only after the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act 1962.
Principle: Spouses can sue each other in tort as if unmarried.

Case: Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (1981)

Facts: Related to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Held: Supreme Court held that arbitrariness violates Article 14.
Principle: Marriage or marital status cannot curtail legal rights; equality before law guaranteed.

Case: Midland Bank Trust Co. Ltd. v. Green (1979)

Facts: Husband and wife conspired in a property transaction to defraud another party.
Held: Court held that spouses can jointly conspire to commit a tort.
Principle: Husband and wife can be jointly liable in tort if they act together to commit wrongdoing.

Case: Scotland v. South African Territories Ltd. (1917) 33 TLR 255

Facts: Issue of who qualifies as an "enemy" during wartime for trade purposes.
Held: Court defined "alien enemy" as anyone of enemy nationality or residing/carrying on business in enemy territory.
Principle: Residence or business in enemy territory makes one an enemy for legal purposes.

Case: Porter v. Freudenberg (1915) 1 KB 857

Facts: British subjects lived and traded in enemy territory during World War I.
Held: Even a British citizen residing or trading in enemy territory is treated as an alien enemy.
Principle: Residence, not nationality, determines enemy status in wartime.

De Wahl v. Braune (1856)

Facts: German subject residing in enemy territory sought to bring a legal action in Britain.
Held: Alien enemy cannot sue in British courts without Crown protection or license.
Principle: Enemy subjects lack right of audience unless under royal protection.

Daimler Co. Ltd. v. Continental Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. (1916)

Facts: English company controlled by German shareholders/directors sued in England.
Held: Company may assume "enemy character" if controllers are enemy nationals.
Principle: Corporate personality can acquire enemy character based on control.

Johnstone v. Pedlar (1921)

Facts: Irishman, alleged alien enemy, lawfully residing in UK challenged government confiscation.
Held: Alien enemy lawfully residing under permission is freed from enemy status and may sue.
Principle: Alien enemies with lawful residence can access courts and legal protection.

Case: Manaseeh Film Co. v. Gemini Picture Circuit (AIR 1944)

Facts: Person carried on business in enemy country without Indian government license.
Held: Considered an alien enemy; barred from suing in Indian courts.
Principle: Residence and government permission determine capacity to sue during wartime.

Statutory Reference: Section 83, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (India)

Provision: Alien enemies with Central Government permission and alien friends may sue; those without permission or residing in enemy states cannot.
Principle: Legal capacity depends on residence and government authorization.

Case: Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. (1862)

Facts: Driver, told not to race other buses, still obstructed a rival omnibus and caused injury.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: Act was an unauthorized mode of doing authorized work (promoting business).

Case: Beard v. London General Omnibus Co. (1900)

Facts: Bus conductor drove the omnibus without permission and injured a pedestrian.

Held: Employer not liable.

Principle: Act entirely outside employment.

Case: Storey v. Ashton (1869)

Facts: Driver deviated from route after work for a personal errand and injured a person.

Held: Employer not liable.

Principle: "Frolic of his own" — outside course of employment.

Case: Whatman v. Pearson (1868)

Facts: Driver stopped for lunch slightly off route and caused an accident.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: Minor deviation — still within course of employment.

Case: Barwick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867)

Facts: Bank manager made false representation while acting for the bank.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: Fraud committed in the course of employment.
traditional test defining course of employment

Case: Crook v. Derbyshire County Council (1956)

the employee of the first defendants, collided with the claimant, a motorcyclist, when

crossing the road. Mr. Thorpe was a lorry driver and drove stone from the first defendants’

quarries to a building site. The incident took place when he had left his lorry to go into a

café for refreshment during his 4 hour journey. The first defendants impliedly authorised

such practice. The plaintiff argued the first defendants were vicariously liable as well as

claiming against Mr. Thorpe. It was held that at the time of the accident Mr. Thorpe ‘was a

stranger to his master from the moment when he left the lorry’ and therefore the first

defendants were not responsible for his negligence. It is of note that the case received

mixed or mildly negative judicial treatment.

Case: Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Leonard Lockhart (1943)

Facts: Employee used an uninsured personal car for employer’s business despite a rule against it.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: Prohibition concerned mode (insurance), not scope — employer liable.

Case: Twine v. Bean’s Express Ltd. (1946)

Facts: Driver gave an unauthorized lift to a stranger who was later killed in a crash.

Held: Employer not liable.

Principle: Lift unrelated to employer’s business — outside employment.

Case: Rose v. Plenty (1976)

Facts: Milkman hired a 13-year-old boy to help deliver milk despite prohibition; boy injured.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: Act done to further employer’s business — within the course of employment.

Case: Poland v. John Parr & Sons (1927)

Facts: Servant struck a boy suspected of stealing master’s goods, causing injury.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: Within implied authority to protect master’s property.

Case: Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (1989)

Facts: Employee’s negligence led to a catastrophic oil spill.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: Employer liable for an employee’s negligence (e.g., an oil spill).

Case: Riddell v. Glasgow Corporation (1911)

Facts: An employee's actions were outside their formal instructions. Rate collector defamed a taxpayer alleging forgry

Held: (Implied) Employer not liable.

Principle: Acts outside express or implied authority of an employee do not lead to employer liability.

Case: Keppel Bus Co. v. Sa’ad bin Ahmad (1974)

Facts: A bus employee committed a personal assault.

Held: (Implied) Employer not liable.

Principle: A personal assault not related to the master’s business does not create employer liability.

Case: Daniels v. Whetstone Entertainment Ltd. (1962)

Facts: An employee committed a retaliatory assault.

Held: (Implied) Employer not liable.

Principle: A retaliatory assault is typically considered outside the course of employment.

Case: Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co. (1912)

Facts: A solicitor's managing clerk committed fraud while acting within his apparent authority to clients.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: An employer is liable for fraudulent acts done by an employee if the acts are within the apparent scope of their authority.

Case: State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi (1978)

Facts: A bank employee committed fraud outside the scope of his apparent authority.

Held: No liability (for the bank).

Principle: Fraud committed by an employee outside their apparent authority does not incur employer liability.

Case: Trotman v. North Yorkshire CC (1999)

Facts: Employee acted in a way that negated the employer’s duty of care.

Held: No liability (for the employer).

Principle: Acts by an employee that negate the employer’s non-delegable duty may fall outside the scope of employment.

Case: Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. (2001)

Facts: A warden employed by a residential care home abused children.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: The 'close connection test' holds an employer liable for acts of abuse by an employee if there is a sufficiently close connection between the job and the wrongful conduct.

Case: Bazley v. Curry (1999, SCC)

Facts: A residential care worker abused children under their care.

Held: Employer liable.

Principle: The 'enterprise risk principle' holds employers vicariously liable for intentional torts if the employee's activity creates inherent risks for the employer's business.

Case: Jacobi v. Griffiths (1999)

Facts: Child abuse occurred by a scout leader in a context where the connection to employment was deemed insufficient.

Held: No liability (for the organization).

Principle: Insufficient connection between the employee's wrongful act and the employment relationship leads to no vicarious liability.

Case: Catholic Child Welfare Society v. Various Claimants (2012)

Facts: Abuse was committed by members of a religious institute providing care in residential schools.

Held: Vicarious liability (for the Catholic Child Welfare Society).

Principle: Vicarious liability can extend to relationships 'akin to employment' where the defendant has a similar degree of control over the tortfeasor.

Term: V.J. & W. Henderson Ltd. (1946) - Indicia of contract of service

Definition: Refers to the various indicators or tests used to determine if an individual is an employee (under a 'contract of service') or an independent contractor.

Case: Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra (1957)

Facts: Case examining the relationship between employer and workers in an industrial setting.

Held: (Implied) The Supreme Court recognized that the traditional 'control test' is not the sole determinant.

Principle: The 'control test' alone is not universally applicable or conclusive for determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

Case: Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd. v. Montreal (1947)

Facts: Case concerning the distinction between a contract of service and a contract for services.

Held: (Implied) Established a multi-factor test.

Principle: Introduced a 'multiple test' considering control, ownership of tools, chance of profit, and risk of loss, to determine employment status.

Case: Stevenson, Jordan & Harrison Ltd. v. MacDonald & Evans (1952)

Facts: Dispute over ownership of copyright in lecture notes given by a consultant, hinging on employment status.

Held: (Implied) Applied the 'integration test'.

Principle: The 'integration test' (or 'organisation test') considers whether the worker's work is an integral part of the business, rather than just an accessory to it.

Case: Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v. Chief Inspector of Shops (1974)

Facts: Indian case concerning the nature of the relationship between a tailoring house and its tailors.

Held: Applied a multiple test.

Principle: Indian application of the 'multiple test' (considering various factors beyond mere control) to determine employment status.

Case: Barclays Bank v. Various Claimants (2020)

Facts: Bank engaged a doctor as an independent contractor to conduct medical examinations for job applicants, and the doctor committed sexual assaults.

Held: No vicarious liability.

Principle: Vicarious liability does not automatically extend to independent contractors; a clear distinction is maintained between employees and independent contractors.

Case: Padbury v. Holliday & Greenwood Ltd. (1912)

Facts: Workman employed by a sub-contractor negligently dropped a tool, injuring someone.

Held: No liability (for the principal contractor).

Principle: A principal employer is generally not liable for the 'collateral negligence' of an independent contractor or their workmen, unless there's an inherently dangerous activity or non-delegable duty.

Case: Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

Facts: Defendant built a reservoir on his land, which burst and flooded a neighbor's mine.

Held: Defendant strictly liable.

Principle: A non-delegable duty exists for activities that bring an 'unnatural use' of land and involve a foreseeable risk of mischief if it escapes, leading to strict liability.

Case: Cassidy v. Ministry of Health (1951)

Facts: Patient suffered an injury due to the alleged negligence of a hospital surgeon or staff.

Held: Hospital liable.

Principle: A hospital has a non-delegable duty to ensure that reasonable care is taken by its staff (including doctors) in treating patients, leading to vicarious liability for their negligence.

Case: Santa Garg v. Director, National Heart Institute (2004)

Facts: Indian case concerning medical negligence in a specialty hospital.

Held: Hospital had a duty of care.

Principle: Indian courts affirm that hospitals have a non-delegable duty to provide proper care, holding them vicariously liable for the negligence of their medical professionals.

Case: Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd. (1947)

Facts: A crane owned by the Harbour Board and operated by their regular employee was hired out to another company, and the crane operator caused injury.

Held: The general employer (Harbour Board) liable.

Principle: The presumption is that the general employer remains liable for a lent servant unless it can be proven that full and effective control has been transferred to the hirer.

Case: Rajasthan SRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari (1997)

Facts: A bus belonging to the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) was hired by another entity, and an accident occurred.

Held: The hirer was liable.

Principle: When a vehicle/driver is lent, if the hirer exercises effective control over the operation, the hirer can become vicariously liable.

Case: National Insurance Co. v. Deepa Devi (2008)

Facts: A private vehicle was requisitioned by the government for election duty and caused an accident.

Held: The state and the vehicle's insurer were jointly liable.

Principle: When a vehicle is under government requisition, both the state and the vehicle's insurer can be jointly liable for accidents.

Case: Soblusky v. Egan (1960, Australia)

Facts: The owner of a vehicle was held responsible for the negligence of the driver.

Held: Owner liable.

Principle: An owner of a vehicle may be liable for the driver's negligence if they retain a degree of control over the driver's actions or purpose.

Case: Morgans v. Launchbury (1972)

Facts: A car owner allowed her husband to use the car for his own purposes, and he was involved in an accident causing injury.

Held: No liability (for the owner).

Principle: Mere permission to use a car does not establish an agency relationship, and therefore, the owner is not vicariously liable for the driver's negligence if the driver is not acting on the owner's behalf.

Case: Smith v. Stages (1989)

Facts: Employees were travelling in their own car for work, and they were paid for their travel time and expenses.

Held: Within employment.

Principle: When employees are paid for their travel time and expenses, and the travel is integral to their work, it is generally considered within the course of employment for vicarious liability.

Case: Nancollas v. Insurance Officer (1985)

Facts: An employee was injured while travelling to work.

Held: Covered (under industrial injuries benefit).

Principle: Traveling to and from one's usual place of employment can be considered 'in the course of employment' for certain social security or insurance purposes.

Case: Blee v. LNER Co. (1938)

Facts: An employee, on standby (on-call), was travelling to his place of work when injured.

Held: Within employment.

Principle: Travel by an on-call employee to their workplace, especially when part of their contractual duty, falls within the course of employment.

Case: Paterson v. Costain (1979)

Facts: An employee was travelling in an emergency to assist with a work problem.

Held: Within scope.

Principle: Travel undertaken by an employee in an emergency, if directly related to their work duties, is considered within the scope of employment.

Farley v Skinner (2001)

Surveyor negligently failed to check aircraft noise at property. Plaintiff suffered distress. ;
Held: Damages granted for loss of amenity despite being non-pecuniary. ;
Principle: Non-pecuniary damages (mental discomfort) recoverable when peace or enjoyment of property affected.

Thompson v Commissioner of Police (1998)

Police wrongfully arrested and assaulted the claimant. ;
Held: Exemplary damages awarded. ;
Principle: Courts may grant exemplary damages for oppressive, arbitrary, or unconstitutional acts by government servants.

Khodaparast v Shad (2000)

Defendant used private photos of plaintiff without consent. ;
Held: Damages awarded for distress and embarrassment. ;
Principle: Damages can compensate for invasion of privacy and emotional harm, not just pecuniary loss.

Ashby v White (1703)

Voter wrongfully prevented from voting though candidate won. ;
Held: Defendant liable though no pecuniary loss. ;
Principle: Every legal right has a remedy (ubi jus ibi remedium).

Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd (1978)

Plaintiff paralysed in accident. ;
Held: Damages must ensure fullest possible compensation for loss of amenities and quality of life. ;
Principle: Compensation should restore claimant as far as money can to pre-tort position (restitutio in integrum).

Ratcliffe v Evans (1892)

False statement about plaintiff’s business causing loss. ;
Held: Defendant liable. ;
Principle: Proof of actual damage essential in cases involving economic loss or slander of goods.

Rookes v Barnard (1964)

Union coerced employer to dismiss employee. ;
Held: Limited categories for exemplary damages. ;
Principle: Exemplary damages allowed only for (1) oppressive govt acts, (2) profit-motivated wrongs, (3) statutory authorization.

Lala Punnalal v Kasturichand Ramaji (1961)

Defendant’s servant fraudulently removed goods. ;
Held: Exemplary damages granted. ;
Principle: Indian courts may award punitive damages to deter malicious or fraudulent conduct.

Rudal Shah v State of Bihar (1983)

Plaintiff illegally detained for 14 years after acquittal. ;
Held: Compensation granted for violation of Article 21. ;
Principle: Public law remedy — exemplary damages for breach of fundamental rights.

M.C. Mehta v Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1987)

Gas leak from factory injured many. ;
Held: Strict and absolute liability imposed on enterprise. ;
Principle: Enterprises engaged in hazardous activity absolutely liable for harm caused — no exceptions.

Constantine v Imperial London Hotels (1944)

Black cricketer denied hotel accommodation. ;
Held: Hotel liable for discrimination. ;
Principle: Public service providers owe duty not to refuse service without lawful reason.

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1969)

Hospital refused treatment; patient died of arsenic poisoning. ;
Held: Not liable — death inevitable. ;
Principle: “But for” test — no causation if injury would have occurred anyway.

Robinson v Post Office (1974)

Workman slipped, needed injection, developed rare allergy. ;
Held: Employer liable. ;
Principle: Medical reactions are foreseeable consequences; defendant takes victim as found.

McWilliams v Sir William Arrol & Co (1962)

Worker fell from height; employer failed to supply harness. ;
Held: No causation — worker wouldn’t have worn it. ;
Principle: No liability where breach not factual cause of injury.

McGhee v National Coal Board (1973)

Dust exposure caused dermatitis; employer failed to provide washing facilities. ;
Held: Liability accepted though causation uncertain. ;
Principle: Proof that negligence materially increased risk of harm sufficient.

Chester v Afshar (2004)

Surgeon failed to warn patient of surgery risk; injury occurred. ;
Held: Liable despite risk being inherent. ;
Principle: Failure to warn of risk violates patient autonomy — causation satisfied.

Baker v Willoughby (1970)

Plaintiff’s leg injured by car, later shot in same leg during robbery. ;
Held: First defendant still liable. ;
Principle: First tortfeasor’s liability not reduced by later independent tort.

Re Polemis (1921)

Falling plank caused spark → explosion on ship. ;
Held: Liable for all direct consequences. ;
Principle: Defendant liable for all direct harm, foreseeable or not (later overruled).

Scott v Shepherd (1773)

Threw lit squib into market; passed along, exploded injuring plaintiff. ;
Held: Original thrower liable. ;
Principle: Intentional wrongdoer liable for all direct consequences of act.

Smith v London & South Western Railway Co (1870)

Defendant left grass cuttings near rail → fire spread to plaintiff’s cottage. ;
Held: Liable. ;
Principle: Negligent act creating foreseeable risk of fire makes defendant liable for resulting damage.

Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound No. 1) (1961)

Oil spill → unforeseeable fire damage. ;
Held: Not liable. ;
Principle: Only foreseeable types of harm recoverable — replaced direct consequence test.

Wagon Mound (No. 2) (1967)

same spill, different claimant the ship owner
althought risk was remote, evidence showed it was forseeable harm,even if unlikey should have been prevented

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

Chemical seepage contaminated water supply. ;
Held: Not liable — harm unforeseeable. ;
Principle: Foreseeability essential element in nuisance and Rylands liability.

Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd (1962)

Minor burn triggered cancer → death. ;
Held: Liable for death. ;
Principle: Eggshell skull rule — take your victim as you find him.

Jyoti Devi v Suket Hospital (2024)

Patient’s pre-existing condition worsened due to negligence. ;
Held: Applied Eggshell Rule. ;
Principle: Defendant liable if negligence aggravates or accelerates latent or known conditions.

Emeh v Kensington and Chelsea HA (1985)

Sterilization failed; woman gave birth. ;
Held: Damages allowed. ;
Principle: No novus actus if claimant’s act (not aborting) is reasonable.

McKew v Holland (1969)

Plaintiff, with injured leg, descended stairs unaided → fell. ;
Held: Claimant’s unreasonable act broke causation chain. ;
Principle: Unreasonable conduct by plaintiff

novus actus interveniens.

Reeves v Metropolitan Police (2000)

Detainee committed suicide in custody. ;
Held: Police partly liable. ;
Principle: Duty of care where defendant controls or protects claimant from self-harm.

Chaurasiya & Co v Smt. Pramila Rao (India)

Passengers stayed inside flooded bus; drowned. ;
Held: Act reasonable; chain not broken. ;
Principle: Claimant’s reasonable self-protective act doesn’t break causation.