LAW OF TORTS

ASSIGNMENT

NAME: DARSHEEN KAUR THAPAR

ROLL NUMBER:2K23LWUN04006

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
FACTS:

A 64 year old man was killed in an accident when a car collided with an auto-
rickshaw, a motorcycle and a tempo.

The car driver was driving at high speed which led to the collision.

The Auto rickshaw driver sustained a fracture in his left hand while the
passenger suffered leg injuries

The motorcycle rider suffered serious head injuries and was bleeding profusely
and died.

The tempo driver fractured his leg.

RELEVANT TORT

NEGLIGENCE:

There is no specific definition of negligence. It can be defined as recklessness,

carelessness, abstained from duty of care.

In the case of Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab (2005) negligence was defined as
the breach of duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable
man would not do.

Negligence is a civil wrong as well as a crime.

2 TESTS TO DETERMINE REMOTENESS:

-Test of Reasonable Foresight

-Test of Directness

CASE LAWS:

Re Polemis and Furness, Withy and Co (1921)

TEST OF DIRECTNESS

Employees of the defendant had been loading cargo into the under hold of a
ship when they negligently dropped a large plank of wood. As it fell, the wood
knocked against something else, which created a spark which served to ignite
the surrounding petrol fumes, ultimately resulting in the substantial destruction
of the ship.

Court held that the defendant was liable for all consequences that had resulted
from their negligent actions.
TEST OF REASONABLE FORESIGHT:

Overseas Tankship v Morts Dock (The Wagon Mound Case) (1961)

The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to
leak from their ship. The oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and
the shore where other ships were being repaired. Hot metal produced by welders
using oxyacetylene torches on the respondent's timber wharf (Mort's Dock) at
Sheerlegs Wharf fell on floating cotton waste which ignited the oil on the water.
The wharf and ships moored there sustained substantial fire damage. In an
action by Mort's Dock for damages for negligence it was found as a fact that the
defendants did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know
that the oil was capable of being set alight when spread on water. The dock
owners knew the oil was there, and continued to use welders.

The Privy Council's advice soundly disapproved the rule established in Re

Polemis, as being "out of the current of contemporary thought" and held that to
find a party liable for negligence the damage must be reasonably foreseeable.
The council found that even though the crew were careless and breached their
duty of care, the resulting extensive damage by fire was not foreseeable by a
reasonable person, although the minor damage of oil on metal on the slipway
would have been foreseeable.
ANALYSIS:

In the article where there was an accident when a car collided with an auto-
rickshaw, a motorcycle and a tempo due to the car driver’s negligence as he was
speedily driving would be held liable for the injuries caused to the auto driver
and the passenger and not the others as it was not foreseeable by the car driver

ARTICLE

FACTS

Jharkhand HC has ordered NCB to pay Rs 8 lakh to a man who was implicated
in a drugs case and jailed for 8 years.

The court observed that the bureau filed a false case

The NCB also conducted its own investigation and found that the case was
wrongly lodged.
RELEVANT TORT

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

False imprisonment includes wrongful confinement

Essentials of False Imprisonment

-There should be total restraint on the liberty of a person.

-Without any lawful justification

CASE LAW
RUDAL SHAH v STATE OF BIHAR

In the year 1953, Mr. Rudal Shah was arrested on the charges of murder of his wife. In the
year 1968, he was acquitted by the Court of Sessions, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. But, the petitioner
was kept in jail for 14 years.

A writ petition of habeas corpus was filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court under
Article 32 seeking compensation for his illegal detainment. He also asked for medical
treatment at the expense of the state and ex-gratia payment for his rehabilitation. By the time
the petition came before the court, the petitioner was already released from the jail. But a
show cause notice was issued by the court to the state in relation to ancillary relief

BHIM SINGH v UOI

The petitioner a member of legislative assembly of Jammu & Kashmir was arrested and
detained in police custody. He was deliberately prevented from attending the parliament
sessions to be held on 11th September 1985. He was arrested under section 153A of Ranbir
Penal Code was registered against him for delivering a malicious/ seditious speech at the
public gathering near the parade ground in Jammu on 8th September 1985.

He was not produced before any magistrate until the 13th of September and he was produced
before magistrate within a requisite time period that is 24 hours. As a consequence of this,
there was also a voting session at the assembly which he apparently missed, where his vote
was very crucial but the person to whom he wanted to cast the vote won but his right to vote
was infringed.

ARTICLE
Facts:
Assam’s Chief Minister’s wife filed a Rs 10 Crore defamation case against
Congress MP for false allegations of irregularities in the food processing project
of the Central Governmment.

RELEVANT TORT
DEFAMATION

According to English Law there are two forms of defamation

Libel (Permanent form of defamation)

Example: Through modes of publication like books, music, picture etc.

Slander (Temporary):By words

In India there is no such distinction covered under Section 499 of IPC

ESSENTIALS

-Statement must be defamatory

-Said statement must refer to the Plaintiff

-The statement must be published (communicated)

CASE LAWS:
Mahendra Ram Vs. Harnandan Prasad (1958): A letter written in Urdu was
sent to the plaintiff. Therefore, he needed another person to read it to him. It
was held that since the defendant knew the plaintiff does not know Urdu and he
needs assistance, the act of the defendant amounted to defamation.

Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramanian Swamy (2006): The High Court of Delhi
held Dr. Swamy for defaming Ram Jetmalani by saying that he received money
from a banned organization to protect the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
from the case of assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.

Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (2015): It is a landmark judgment

regarding internet defamation. It held unconstitutional Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 which punishes for sending offensive
messages through communication service

ARTICLE

FACTS

The petitioner, a small-scale businessman had rented a shop room owned by the
Panchayat for which he paid one lakh ten thousand eight hundred as security
deposit.
 After vacating the premises, the petitioner was not refunded with the security
deposit.

The petitioner produced receipts showing payment of security deposits. For

claiming the refund of the security deposit, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

The Court observed that for vicarious liability, certain relation must exist
between the two parties and the wrongful act committed by one party in the
relation has to be connected to their relationship.

It noted that commonly accepted examples of vicarious liability are liability of

principal for the acts of agent, liability of the master for the acts of the servant,
liability of partners in each other’s torts.

Panchayat being a local self-government, is a statutory body and is liable for

the acts of its employees committed during the course of employment.

RELEVANT TORT

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

The concept of vicarious liability in tort is based on the principle of “respondeat

superior” which means “let the master answer” in Latin.

This principle holds that the employer is responsible for the actions of his/her
employees or agents, who are acting within the scope of their employment or
agency

Types of relationship

-Master- Servant Relationship

-Employer- Employee Relationship

-Principal- Agent Relationship

-Partnership Relationship

-Independent Contractor Relationship

CASE LAWS
In Anita Bhandari & Ors. v. Union of India, The husband of the petitioner
went to a bank and while entering inside it, the cash box of the bank was also
being carried inside and as a result, the security guard in a haste shot him and
caused his death. The petitioner had claimed that the bank was vicariously liable
in the case because the security guard had done such act in the course of
employment but the bank had contended that it had not authorized the guard to
shoot. The Court held the bank liable as the act of giving him gun amounted to
authorize him to shoot when he deemed it necessary and while the guard had
acted overzealously in his duties but it was still done in the course of
employment

ARTICLE

FACTS

It came to the notice of the police that some people are misusing social media
sites for cheap publicity and showing police deployed at Char Dham shrines in a
negative way.

They are creating nuisance by causing inconvenience to others and not

maintaining sanctity of religious sites by making reels and vlogs there.

RELEVANT TORT
PUBLIC NUISANCE

Public nuisance affects the society and the people living in it at large, or some
considerable portion of the society and it affects the rights which the members
of the society might enjoy over the property. The acts which seriously affects or
interferes with the health, safety or comfort of the general public is a public
nuisance

CASE LAW

Shaikh Ismail Habib v. Nirchanda

The defendant had set apart a portion of his own house for purpose of charity in
this he allowed to perform any type of function related to marriage ceremonies,
poojas etc. this was available to people present around free of cost, due to this
particular charity place a lot of noise was caused also with discordant
instrument plying for long time during ceremonies this was normal residence
place where people finding difficult of do normal and ordinary course of life.

Held by high court that this act of defendant amounted to nuisance and plaintiff
was entitle to injunction that will restrain defendant from disturbing further
during hour of sleep and charity cannot be defence in such cases