Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

DAMNUM SINE INJURIA:Damage was caused but there was no violation of any legal right.

CASE LAWS RELATED TO DAMNUM SINE INJURIA:1) Glouchester Grammar School CaseIn this case, school master set up a new school near the school of plaintiff and he reduced the fee which was prevailing in that locality.But there was no violation of any legal right, so court refused to give compensation. 2) Ushaben V. Bhagya Laxmi Chitra MandirThe plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain them from exhibiting the film named JAI SANTOSHI MAA. It was contended that the film hurt the religious feelings of the plaintiff in so far as Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi and Parwati were depicted as jealous and ridiculed. It was observed that hurt to religious feelings has not been recognized as a legal wrong. So no compensation was awarded to the plaintiff. 3) Prabhudayal V. Town Area CommitteeThe plaintiff constructed 16 shops on the old foundations of a building. The said construction was made without giving a notice of intention to erect a building under sec.178 of the U.P. Municipalities Act and without obtaining necessary sanction required under sec.180 of that act. The defendants demolished this construction. In an action against the defendants to claim compensation for the demolition, the plaintiff alleged that the action of the defendants was illegal as it was malafide. It was held that the defendants were not liable as no injuria could be proved because if a person construct a building illegally, the demolition of such building by the municipal authorities would not amount causing injuria to the owner of the property. Hence, no compensation was awarded. 4) Mogul Steamship Co. V. Town Area CommitteeA no. of steamship co. combined together and drove the plaintiffs company out of the tea carrying trade by offering reduced freight. The House of Lords held that the plaintiff has no cause of action as defendants had by lawful means acted to protect and extend their trade and increase their profit. Hence, no compensation was awarded. 5) Vishnu Datt V. Board of H.S. and Intermediate Education U.PThe plaintiff was an intermediate student. He was detained for shortage of attendance. His detention was found by the court to be illegal as the attendance register of the college were not maintained according to the regulations of the board. As the consequence of the detention, he lost one year. His action to claim compensation for the loss was not allowed as the plaintiffs claim did not falls under any heads recognized in common law. No compensation was awarded.

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA:The plaintiff voluntarily agrees to suffer from harm, he is not allowed to complain for that and his consent serves as a good defense against him.

CASE LAWS RELATED TO VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA 1) Hall V. Brooklands Auto Racing Club-

The plaintiff was a spectator at a motor car race being held at Brookland on a track owned by the defendant company. During the race there was a collision between two cars, one of which was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff impliedly took the risk of such injury, the danger being inherent in sport which any spectator could foresee, the defendant was not held liable.

2) Illot V. WilkesA trespasser who knew about the presence of spring guns on the land could not recover damages when he shot by a spring gun. Similarly damage caused to a trespasser by broken glass or spikes on a wall, or a fierce dog is not actionable.

3) Padmavati V. DugganaikaWhile the driver was taking the jeep for filling petrol in the tank, two strangers took lift in the jeep. Suddenly one of the bolts fixing the right axle gave way toppling the jeep. Both the strangers sustained injuries. It was held that neither the driver nor the master was liable because firstly, it was a case of sheer accident and secondly, the strangers had consented to take injury as they themselves had taken the lift.

A)Consent obtained by Fraud:1) R. V. WilliamsThe accused, a music teacher,was held guilty of rape when he had sexual intercourse with a girl student of 16 yrs. Under the pretence that this act was an operation to improve her voice. If on the other hand, the mistake which the fraud includes is not such which goes to the real nature of the act done. It cannot be considered as an element as vitiating the consent.

2) R. V. ClearenceIt was held that husband was not liable for an offence when the intercourse with his wife infected with venereal disease, even though the husband has failed to make her aware of this fact.

3) R. V. Dicca-

B) Consent obtained by compulsion:Consent given under circumstances when the person does not have freedom of choice. A person may be compelled by some situation to knowingly undertake some risky work which, if he had a free choice, he would not have undertaken.

1) Bowater V. Rowley Regis CorporationThe plaintiff, a cart driver, was asked by the defendants foreman to which was liable to bolt in knowledge of both. The plaintiff protested but ultimately took out the horse in obedience of the order. The horse bolted and the plaintiff was injured thereby.

Here, compensation was awarded to the plaintiff.

2) Smith V. BakerThe plaintiff was a workman employed by the defendant on working the drill for the purpose of cutting the rock. By the help of a crane, the stones were being moved from one side to other crossing over the head of the plaintiff, due to negligent act of his co-worker, the stone fell from the crane and the plaintiff got injured. Here, the injury was caused negligently and volenti non fit injuria will not be applicable and compensation will be awarded.

Component of Volenti Non Fit Injuria1 Knowledge about the risk,


2 Consent to suffer harm Scenti Non Fit Injuria-

Only knowledge to suffer harm.

1) Dann V. HamiltonA lady knowing that the driver of the car was drunk chose to travel in it instead of an omnibus which was also available at the same time. Due to drivers negligent driving, an accident was caused resulting in the death of the driver himself and injuries to the lady passenger. Lady passenger filed a suit for compensation by the drivers widow. The widow took the pledge of volenti non fit injuria but court said that the degree of intoxication of the driver was not at such an extent that he would have loosed his consciousness. Hence, compensation was given to the lady passenger.

2) Slater V. Clay Cross Co. Ltd.The plaintiff was struck and injured by a train driver by the defendants servant while she was walking along a narrow tunnel on a railway track which was own and occupied by the defendants.The company knew that the tunnel was used by the members of the public and had instructed his drivers to whistle and slow down while entering the tunnel. The accident occurred because the driver was negligent by not following the order of the defendants. Hence, defendants were held liable and compensation was awarded to the plaintiff.

LIMITATION TO MAXIM VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA:RESCUE CASESA Physical Injury B Psychiatric Illness
A Physical Injury-

1) Videan V. British Transport CorporationA two-year old boy, who being the son of a village station master, lived in a house adjoining the platform, strayed on the railway track. The station master saw his son standing on the track and at the same time saw a power-driven trolley approaching on the track at considerable speed. He signaled the driver of the trolley to stop, but the driver did not understand the signals and did not see the child until it was too late to

pull up. During the rescue, the station master died but his child was rescued by him. His wife filed two casesa compensation for the rescuer b compensation for the death of her husband due to the negligent act of the defendants driver. Here, the court said that the station masters child was a trespasser and therefore no compensation was awarded for that case. But compensation was awarded for the death of her husband because it occurred due to the negligent act of the defendants workmen.

2) Haynes V. HarwoodIn this case the defendants servant two-horse van unattended in a street. A boy threw a stone on the horses and they bolted, causing grave danger to woman and a child on the road. A police constable who was on duty inside a nearby police station, on seeing the same, managed to stop the horses, but in doing so, he himself suffered serious personal injuries. This reflects that it is a rescue case and here constable is the rescuer, who suffered physical injuries. So, compensation will be awarded.

3) Wagner V. International Railway CompanyA railway passenger was thrown out of the running train due to the negligence of the railway company. After the train was stopped by his companion by pulling the chain, he got down in search for his friend. Due to darkness, the rescuer missed his footings and fell down from the bridge resulting the injuries to himself. He brought an action against the railway company. Here, compensation was awarded to the plaintiff.
B Psychiatric Illness Need for getting compensation for psychiatric illness:1 Proximity of relationship between primary and secondary victim. 2 Proximity of time and space. 3 Means by which psychiatric illness is caused. 1) Chadwik V. British Transport Corp.-

Mr.Chadwik who lived 200 yards away from the scene of a serious train crash, went to the spot to do what he could help and worked all through the night giving assistance to the injured and dying. The key witness at the trial a woman trapped in the wreckage who have been given an injection by Mr.Chadwik on request by a doctor, who was himself too large to enter into the wreckage described the horrors of the tragedy to which Mr.Chadwik has been exposed. There had been a sea of bodies and people had been screaming in pain and fear. Before the incident he had been cheerful and active member of the local community, but as a result of his involvement in the tragedy, he developed severe anxiety and neurosis. The defendants were held liable and compensation was awarded to the plaintiff.

2) Alcok V. Chief Constable of South YorkshireThis case arose from the tragic events that took place during the 1989 F.A.Cup semifinal. All the tickets were sold out and the match was being showed on live television. South Yorkshire police admitted that the death of 75 spectators, and injuries to a further 400, were caused by their negligence in allowing too many people into the stadium. Claims for physical injury and death were settled by the police, as were certain psychiatric illness claimed by the police officers who had dragged bodies from the seen of the danger. Here, compensation was awarded by COURT OF APPEAL but later it was rejected by THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

3) White V. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire-

It is impact of Alcok case. The same decision was taken in this case also.

4) Mc Farlane V. E.E.Caledonia Co. Ltd.In this case the plaintiffs co-worker were drowning in the see who were on another boat as of the plaintiff. No compensation was awarded since the plaintiff was a secondary victim and no physical harm was caused to him.

ACT OF GOD:1) Nicholas V. MarshlandThe defendants created some artificial lakes on his land by damming some natural streams. Once there was an extra-ordinary heavy rainfall, stated to be the heaviest in human memory. As a result of which, the embankments of the lake gave away. The rush of water washed away four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. It was held that the defendants were not liable as the loss had occurred due to act of god

2) Kallulal V. Hemchand
The wall of a building collapsed on a day when there was a rainfall of 2.66 inches. That resulted in the death of the respondents two children. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the defendant could not take the defense of Act of God in this case as that much of rainfall during the rainy season was not something extra-ordinary but only such as ought to have been anticipated and guarded against. The defendant was therefore, held liable.

INEVITABLE ACCIDENT:1) Stanle V. PowellThe plaintiff and the defendant who were the members of a shooting party, went for pheasant shooting. The defendant fired at a pheasant but the shot from his gun glanced off an oak tree and injured the plaintiff. It was held that injury was accidental and the defendant was not liable.

2) Sridhar Tiwari V. U.P State Road Transport CorporationWhile bus A belonging to U.P.S.R.T.C reached near a village, a cyclist suddenly came in front of the bus, It had rained and the road was wet. As the driver applied brakes to save the cyclist, the bus skidded on the road. As a result of which the rear portion of this bus hit the front portion of bus B coming from the opposite direction. It was found that at that time, both the buses were being driven at a moderate speed and the accident had occurred despite due care on the part of the drivers of both the buses. It was held that the accident had occurred due to inevitable accident and, therefore, the defendant corporation was not held liable.

STATUTORY AUTHORITY:The damage resulting from an act, which the legislature authorizes or directs to be done, is not actionable even though it would otherwise be a tort.

1) Vaughan V. Taff Valde Rail Co.In this case spark from an engine of the respondents railway company, which had been authorized to run the railway, set fire to the appellants wood on the adjoining land. It

was held that respondents have taken proper care to prevent the emission of sparks and they were doing nothing more than what the Statute had authorized them to do. They were not liable.

2) Hammer Smith Rail Co. V. BrandThe value of the plaintiffs property had considerably depreciated due to the noise, vibration and smoke caused by the running of trains on a railway constructed under statutory powers. Therefore, the defendants were not held liable.

3) Smith V. London $ South Western Railway Co.The servants of a railway company, negligently left trimmings of the grass and hedges near a railway line. Sparks from an engine sets the material on fire. By a heavy wind, the fire was carried to the plaintiffs cottage, 200 yards away from the railway line. The cottage was burnt. Since it was a case of negligence on the part of Railway Co., they were held liable.

Вам также может понравиться