Case List for "Torts and Consumer protection Act" JGLS Sem 1 Year 1

Poggi v. Scott

Topic: Trespass to Land and Chattel
Facts: A landlord sold barrels belonging to the tenant, mistakenly believing they were empty.
Held: Intentional interference with another's property constitutes trespass to chattel, even if done in good faith.

Courvoisier v. Raymond

Topic: Defenses to Intentional Torts
Facts: A shopkeeper mistakenly shot a police officer while defending his property from rioters.
Held: Reasonable belief in imminent danger justifies the use of self-defense, even if mistaken.

Vosburg v. Putney

Topic: Trespass to person
Facts- Little boy innocently kicks another little boy during school causing injury
Holding- Intention to harm is not required in battery, intention to act is enough

Letang v Cooper

Topic: Trespass to person
Facts: A driver accidentally ran over a woman sunbathing on a parking lot.
Held: Intentional torts require deliberate actions, not negligence.

Fowler v Lanning

Topic: Trespass to person
Facts: The plaintiff alleged the defendant shot him without specifying intent or negligence.
Held: The burden is on the claimant to prove intent for intentional torts.

Cole v Turner

Topic: Trespass to person
Facts: A scuffle led to minimal physical contact between parties.
Held: The slightest hostile touch can constitute battery.

Wilkinson v Downton

Topic: Trespass to person
Facts: A prank falsely informed a woman that her husband was severely injured, causing her shock.
Held: Deliberate acts intended to cause harm, even indirectly, can be actionable.

Murray v Ministry of Defence

Topic: Trespass to person
Facts: A woman was detained by soldiers without physical contact during a lawful arrest.
Held: Physical contact is unnecessary for false imprisonment if freedom of movement is restricted.

Dougherty v. Stepp

Topic: Trespass to Land and Chattel
Facts: The defendant entered the plaintiff's land without causing any physical damage.
Held: Every unauthorized entry onto another's land is a trespass, regardless of harm caused.

Hudson v. Craft

Topic: Defenses to Intentional Torts
Facts: A Man was injured in an unlicensed boxing match as a fighter.
Held: Consent to an illegal act is not a valid defense for the organizer.

McGuire v. Almy

Topic: Defenses to Intentional Torts
Facts: A nurse was injured by a mentally ill patient during a violent outburst.
Held: Mental incapacity is not a defense to intentional torts if the individual can form intent.

Bird v. Holbrook

Topic: Defenses to Intentional Torts
Facts: A spring gun injured a trespasser unaware of its presence on private property.
Held: Property owners cannot use excessive force to protect property without warning.

Kirby v. Foster

Topic: Defenses to Intentional Torts
Facts: An employer used force to recover wages he believed were unlawfully retained by the employee.
Held: If one has entrusted his property to another, who afterwards, honestly though erroneously, claims it as his own, the owner has no right to retake it by force.

Ploof v. Putnam

Topic: Defenses to Intentional Torts
Facts: A ship owner moored to a private dock during a storm, and the dock owner's employee unmoored it, causing damage.
Held: Necessity justified the trespass, and the dock owner was liable for the resulting harm. Necessity will justify entries upon land and interferences with personal property that would otherwise have been trespass. master is liable for acts of his servant if in course of his employment(Vicarious liability)

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.

Topic: Trespass to Land and Chattel
Facts: A dock was damaged when a ship remained moored during a storm to protect the vessel.
Held: Necessity justified the trespass but required compensation for damage caused.

Donoghue v Stevenson

Topic: Negligence: Duty of Care
Facts: A woman became ill after consuming a ginger beer with a decomposed snail inside, purchased by a friend.
Held: Manufacturers owe a duty of care to ultimate consumers to avoid foreseeable harm.

Caparo Industries v Dickman

Topic: Negligence: Duty of Care
Facts: Investors claimed losses after relying on inaccurate company accounts prepared by auditors.
Held: A duty of care exists if harm is foreseeable, there is proximity, and it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability.

Muhammad Riaz Khan v Commissioner Of Correctional Services

Topic: Negligence: Duty of Care
Facts: A detainee filed a claim for negligence, alleging failure to provide adequate medical care.
Held: Authorities owe a duty of care to detainees, particularly regarding their safety and well-being.

Vaughan v. Menlove

Topic: Negligence: Breach of Duty
Facts: A haystack fire caused damage due to the defendant's failure to follow safety advice.
Held: Negligence is measured by the standard of a reasonable person, not subjective judgment.

Brown v. Kendall

Topic: Negligence: Breach of Duty
Facts: The defendant accidentally struck the plaintiff while separating fighting dogs.
Held: A defendant is not liable if they acted with ordinary care under the circumstances.

Roberts v. Ring

Topic: Negligence: Breach of Duty
Facts: An elderly driver struck a child who ran onto the street.
Held: In considering the negligence of a seven-year-old boy, the standard of care, is the degree of care commonly exercised by the ordinary boy of his age and maturity.

United States v Carroll Towing Co.

Topic: Negligence: Breach of Duty
Facts: A barge sank after being left unattended, causing significant damage.
Held: Liability depends on a cost-benefit analysis of precautions, as per the Hand Formula (B < P x L), where B=Burden P=probability L=injury

Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen

Topic: Negligence: Breach of Duty
Facts: A blind pedestrian fell into an open excavation on a public sidewalk.
Held: The duty of care includes making public spaces reasonably safe for individuals with disabilities.

Scott v Shepherd

Topic: Negligence: Breach of Duty
Facts: A squib (firework) thrown into a marketplace injured the plaintiff after being passed along by others.
Held: The original thrower was liable, as their act was the proximate cause of the injury.

Stone v. Bolton

Topic: Negligence: Breach of Duty
Facts: A cricket ball struck a passerby outside the boundary of a cricket ground.
Held: Defendants were liable because even a small risk of serious harm necessitates precautions.

Veeran v Krishnamurthy

Topic: Negligence: Breach of Duty
Facts: A tree branch fell and injured the plaintiff due to poor maintenance by the defendant.
Held: Defendants breached their duty by failing to maintain the premises safely.

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Topic: Negligence: Breach of Duty
Facts: A water pipe burst during extreme frost, causing damage to the plaintiff's property.
Held: No breach occurred as the frost was unforeseeable and extraordinary.

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

Topic: Negligence: Duty of Care in Some Special Cases
Facts: A patient suffered injury due to a treatment method that was widely accepted in the medical community.
Held: A doctor is not negligent if their actions align with a responsible body of medical opinion, even if others disagree.

Laxman B. Joshi v. Trimbak B. Godbole

Topic: Negligence: Duty of Care in Some Special Cases
Facts: A surgeon performed surgery negligently, causing complications that could have been avoided.
Held: Medical professionals owe a heightened duty of care to patients, and failure to meet that duty is actionable.

Phillips India Ltd. v. Kunju Punnu

Topic: Negligence: Duty of Care in Some Special Cases
Facts: A worker was injured due to faulty machinery, which was improperly maintained.
Held: Employers owe a strict duty of care for the safety of their employees, particularly regarding equipment maintenance.

A.S. Mittal v. State of UP

Topic: Negligence: Duty of Care in Some Special Cases
Facts: The plaintiff's house was damaged by a defective government road construction project.
Held: The state is liable for negligence if it fails to meet its duty to maintain public safety through proper planning and execution of public projects.

McFarlane v Tayside Health Board

Topic: Negligence: Duty of Care in Some Special Cases
Facts: A child was born as a result of a failed Vasectomy, and the parents sued for the costs of raising the child.
Held: The health board was not liable for the child's upbringing costs, as the failure of sterilization did not constitute a breach of the duty of care.

Smith v Charles Baker & Sons

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence
Facts: A worker was injured due to unsafe working conditions, despite knowing the risks involved.
Held: Contributory negligence was not established because the worker did not voluntarily assume the risk of injury.

South Indian Industrial Ltd Madras v Alamelu Ammal (1995)

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence
Facts: A woman was injured due to a defect in machinery at a factory.
Held: The court held that the defense of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk) could not be invoked by the employer.

Haynes v Harwood

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence
Facts: A person was injured while trying to stop a runaway horse, which was negligently left unattended by its owner.
Held: The defense of volenti non fit injuria did not apply as the person was acting in an emergency to prevent harm to others.

Ramachandran Nagaram Rice and Oil Ltd v Municipal Commissioners of Purulia Municipality (1983)

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence
Facts: A company sued the municipality for failing to maintain a safe public road, resulting in an accident.
Held: The defense of contributory negligence was not upheld as the municipality had a primary duty to maintain the road.

Manindra Nath Mukherjee v Mathuradas Chatturbhuj

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence
Facts: A person was injured due to the negligence of another who failed to properly maintain the premises.
Held: The defense of contributory negligence was not accepted as the injured party had not contributed to the harm.

Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence
Facts: A spectator was injured while attending a motor race and sued the event organizers for negligence.
Held: The defense of voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria) was upheld as the spectator knew the risks inherent in attending a motor race.

TC Balakrishnan Menon v TR Subramanian (1969)

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence

Facts: An explosive (Minnal Gundu) burst in a crowd during a fireworks exhibition, injuring the respondent, despite being handled by an independent contractor.

Held: The court applied the rule from Rylands v Fletcher, holding the appellant liable for the harm caused by the inherently hazardous object, irrespective of the contractor's involvement.

Importance: Affirmed that liability cannot be avoided by delegating the handling of ultrahazardous activities to independent contractors.

Smt Vidya Devi v MPSRTC (2006)

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence
Facts: A woman sued the transport corporation for an injury sustained due to negligence in driving.
Held: The defense of contributory negligence was not upheld, as the plaintiff did not act in a way that contributed to the injury.

Morris v Murray

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence
Facts: A passenger willingly boarded a plane piloted by an intoxicated friend, resulting in a crash and the passenger's injury.
Held: The defense of volenti non fit injuria was upheld, as the passenger knowingly accepted the risk of flying with a drunk pilot.

Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.

Topic: Negligence: Defenses to Negligence
Facts: A driver experiencing a sudden mental delusion caused a car accident.
Held: The defense of insanity was rejected because the delusion was foreseeable, and the driver was aware of their condition.

M/s Spring Meadows Hospital v Harjot Ahluwalia

Topic: Consumer Protection Act
Facts: A child suffered brain damage due to negligence by hospital staff administering the wrong injection.
Held: The hospital was held liable under the Consumer Protection Act for providing deficient medical services.
Importance: Expanded the scope of the Consumer Protection Act to cover beneficiaries of services, even if they are not the direct consumers.

Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha & Ors (1995)

Topic: Consumer Protection Act
Facts: The issue was whether medical services fell under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
Held: Medical services were classified as "services" under the Act unless provided free of charge or as part of charitable activities.
Importance: Brought clarity to the inclusion of medical services under the Consumer Protection Act, ensuring accountability for medical negligence.

Rylands v Fletcher

Topic: Strict Liability
Facts: A reservoir built on the defendant's land burst, causing flooding on the claimant's property.
Held: The defendant was held strictly liable for bringing a dangerous thing onto their land, which escaped and caused harm.
Importance: Established the rule of strict liability, where individuals are liable for harm caused by non-natural uses of land, regardless of negligence.

Rickards v Lothian

Topic: Strict Liability
Facts: A third party intentionally blocked a sink, causing water to overflow and damage the claimant's property.
Held: The defendant was not liable as the use of the sink was deemed a natural use of the property.
Importance: Clarified that strict liability applies only to non-natural uses of land and excludes damage caused by third-party actions.

Union Carbide Corporation and Others v Union of India and Others (1989)

Topic: Absolute Liability
Facts: The ______ Gas Tragedy involved the escape of toxic methyl isocyanate gas from a manufacturing plant, causing mass deaths and injuries.
Held: The principle of absolute liability was applied, holding the corporation liable without exceptions for harm caused by inherently hazardous activities.
Importance: Established absolute liability for industrial disasters in India, ensuring no defenses for harm caused by dangerous operations.

M.C. Mehta v Shri Ram Foods and Fertilizer Industries (1987)

Topic: Absolute Liability
Facts: A gas leak from a fertilizer plant in Delhi caused harm to nearby residents and the environment.
Held: The Supreme Court introduced the doctrine of absolute liability, making enterprises engaged in hazardous activities strictly liable for any resulting harm, without exceptions.
Importance: Strengthened environmental jurisprudence in India by imposing stringent liability on industries handling dangerous substances.

Hough v London Express Newspaper, Ltd (1940)

Topic: Defamation
Facts: A newspaper published an article implying the claimant had been involved in criminal activities.
Held: The newspaper was held liable for defamation as the statement injured the claimant's reputation.
Importance: Emphasized the responsibility of media to avoid defamatory implications and protect individual reputations.

Petra Ecclestone v Telegraph Media Group (2012)

Topic: Defamation
Facts: The newspaper falsely implied that the claimant engaged in dishonest financial dealings.
Held: The court ruled in favor of claimant, awarding damages for defamation.
Importance: Reinforced accountability for publications that tarnish reputations through false accusations.

Huth v Huth (1915)

Topic: Defamation
Facts: A defamatory letter was sent in a sealed envelope but was opened by a third party.
Held: No defamation occurred as the defendant had no intention of publishing the letter to a third party.
Importance: Highlighted that defamation requires intentional or foreseeable publication to a third party.

Indian Express Newspapers v Jagmohan Mundhara and Anr (1985)

Topic: Defamation
Facts: A film was criticized in a newspaper as morally corrupting.
Held: The criticism was held not defamatory as it was a fair comment on a matter of public interest.
Importance: Established the defense of fair comment in defamation cases concerning public matters.

New York Times Co v Sullivan (1964)

Topic: Defamation
Facts: A public official sued the newspaper for publishing critical remarks about him in a civil rights advertisement.
Held: The court ruled that public officials must prove "actual malice" to claim defamation.
Importance: Introduced the "actual malice" standard, balancing freedom of the press and protection of reputation.

R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

Topic: Defamation
Facts: A journalist was restricted from publishing the autobiography of a convicted criminal, citing defamation.
Held: The court upheld the journalist's right to publish as it concerned a matter of public interest.
Importance: Affirmed freedom of the press while defining limits of defamation against public figures.

Abdul Wahab Galadari v Indian Express Newspaper (1986)

Topic: Defamation
Facts: The claimant sued for defamatory content published about his business dealings.
Held: The publication was held liable for not verifying facts before publication.
Importance: Emphasized the duty of care in ensuring accuracy before disseminating potentially defamatory content.

Govind Shantaram Walavakar v Pandharinath Shivaram Rege (1981)

Topic: Defamation
Facts: A defamatory statement was made in a letter, damaging the claimant's reputation within a small community.
Held: The court held the statement defamatory as it lowered the claimant's standing in society.
Importance: Demonstrated that defamation applies even in limited contexts, like small communities.

Nishi Prem v Javed Akhtar (2010)

Topic: Defamation
Facts: The claimant sued for derogatory remarks made by the defendant in public statements.
Held: The court ruled in favor of the claimant, finding the statements defamatory and injurious to her reputation.
Importance: Reinforced liability for defamatory remarks made in public forums, emphasizing respect for individual reputation.

The Six Carpenters' Case (1610)

Topic: Trespass to Land
Facts: Six carpenters entered an inn lawfully but refused to pay for refreshments they consumed, and the inn keeper tried to claim them as tresspassers for not paying
Held: When an entry, authority, or licence, is given to any one by the law, and he abuses it, he shall be a trespasser ab initio, however it will not be trespass where the entry or authority is given by the party and abused.
Importance: Introduced the doctrine of trespass ab initio, where misuse of lawful entry can retroactively turn it into trespass.