MAJOR CASE LAWS

1). Allen vs. Flood:-

The plaintiffs- two shipwrights - were employed by X to do wood works on a ship on which X had already employed some iron workers. The trade union of the iron workers objected to X's employment of the plaintiffs because they had previously done iron work in another ship and Allen, a delegate of the union, informed X of this and told him that unless the plaintiffs were dismissed, all the iron workers would be called out, or would strike work. X accordingly discharged them in pursuance of his legal right to do so, for under their contract of employment they were liable to be dismissed at a time. They sued Allen. The House of Lords held that Allen had done no unlawful act, used no unlawful means in procuring the shipwrights' discharge and that however malicious or bad the motive might have been, his conduct was not actionable. If a man has done what he is justified in doing, the law will not permit an inquiry into his motives. The House of Lords laid it down as a universal proposition that an act lawful in itself is not converted by a  malicious or bad intention into an unlawful act so as to make the doer of the act liable to civil action. 

2). Ashby vs. White:- 

The plaintiff was wrongfully prevented from exercising his vote by the defendants, the returning officers in parliamentary elections. The candidate for whom the plaintiff wanted to give his vote had come out successful in the election. Still the plaintiff brought an action claiming damages against the defendants for maliciously preventing him from exercising his statutory right of voting in that election. The plaintiff was allowed damages by the House of Lords as there was the infringement of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.

3). Austin vs. Dowling:-

It was a case on false imprisonment. In this case, an inspector of police refused to take the responsibility of arresting B on a charge made by A unless A signed the charge-sheet, it was held that A's tort was false imprisonment because the inspector had interposed no discretion of his own between A's charge and the arrest which he followed. 

4). Austin vs. G. W. Rly.:-

A woman and her child were travelling in the defendant's train and the child was injured by the defendant's negligence. The child was held entitled to recover damages, for it had been accepted as a passenger. The liability in tort is fixed by the law irrespective of any contract between the parties. Hence the above case is of breach of contractual duty.

5). Blake vs. Barnard:-

The above case is of assault. In this case the defendant pulled a gun on the claimant. The defendant knew it wasn't loaded but the claimant did not. The claimant had reasonable belief of getting shot to death, therefore there was an assault. Hence the defendant was held liable.

6). P. Rathinam vs. UOI:-

In this case the SC observed that there is no distinction between crime and tort, in as much as a tort harms an individual, whereas, a crime is supposed to harm a society. But then, a society is made of individuals. Harm to an individual is ultimately harm to the society.

7). Donoghue vs. Stevenson:-

In this case, a manufacturer of ginger-beer had sold to a retailer, ginger-beer in a bottle of dark glass. The bottle, unknown to anyone, contained the decomposed remains of a snail which had found its way into the bottle at the factory. X purchased the bottle from the retailer and treated the plaintiff, a lady friend, to its contents. Owing to the darkness of the glass nothing of the snail was discernible until X was replenishing the plaintiff's glass. In consequence partly of what she had drunk and partly of what she saw, she became very ill. She sued the manufacturer for negligence. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed her a duty to take care that the bottle did not contain noxious matter and that he was liable if that duty was broken. 

8). Mogul Steamship Co. vs. McGregor Gow & Co.:-

In the above case, the defendant steamship companies wished to monopolise the China-tea carrying trade. They therefore combined together to offer reduced freight in order to induce shippers to employ them. In consequence, the Mogul steamship Co., which had been excluded from the combination, was driven out of the trade and the company brought an action for conspiracy against the defendants. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants had wilfully caused loss to them by compelling certain merchants in China to cease to act as their agents by means of a threat that if they continued to do so, the agency of the defendant association will be withdrawn from them. The defendants were held not liable for their object was merely to protect and extend their trade and they had not used any unlawful means.

9). Gloucestar Grammar School case:-

In this case, the plaintiff, a schoolmaster, was running a school, when a person, another schoolmaster of his neighbourhood, opened another school and taught children by taking a lesser fee. Due to this the plaintiff suffered loss. But it was held that the defendant was not liable as it was mere damnum sine injuria, i.e., damages without legal injury.  

10). Glasgow Corp. vs. Taylor(1922):-

In this case, the Glasgow corp. owned and maintained a Botanical garden, which was open to the public. In this garden there was a tree of poisonous berries. A boy of 7 came to this garden and ate one of these berries and died. No signs of warning were placed by the Glasgow corp. in front of the tree. The Glasgow Corporation was held liable.

11). Delhi Municipal corp. vs. Subhagwanti & others(AIR 1966 SC 1750):-

In this case, a clock tower was owned and maintained by the Delhi Municipal Corp. Due to non maintenance/negligence on the side of Delhi Municipal Corp., the clock tower fell over a person, husband of Subhagwanti, and the person sustained injuries. The Delhi Municipal Corp. was held liable for negligence. 

12). Bhim Singh vs. State of J&K(1985):-

In this case, Bhim Singh, an (MLA), was wrongfully detained by a police officer, while going to attend the Assembly. He was not even produced before the Magistrate within the requisite period. The MLA was deprived of his constitutional right to attend the Assembly sessions. There was violation of Fundamental Rights. The court ordered damages of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner. 

13). Guille vs. Swan(1882):-

The defendant flew in a balloon but unfortunately had to embark in the garden of the plaintiff. A huge crowd entered into the garden to witness him as a result of which his garden was damaged. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the damages. The court held that the defendant was liable.

14). Hall vs. Brooklands Auto Racing Club (1932):-

The plaintiff was a spectator in the defendant's club. During the race, there was a collision between two cars and one of them was thrown over a spectator and he sustained serious injuries. It was held that the defendant was not liable for the injury as the plaintiff had consented to suffer the damage impliedly.

15). Wooldrige vs. Summer:-

The duty owed by a participant competitor to a spectator had been laid down in this case. A person attending a competition or game takes the risk of any damage caused to him by the act of the participant done in the course of and for the purposes of the game or the competition. In the above case a film cameraman sustained damages at a horse race from a horse and its rider. But the rider was not held guilty.  

16). Dann vs. Hamilton (1939):-

In this case, the plaintiff, a lady knowing that the driver of the car was drunk and the possibility of accident was more, decided to travel by his car. An accident took place and the plaintiff sustained serious injuries. The plaintiff was entitled to recover damages. This was because; mere knowledge does not imply consent to the task.

17). R vs Williams (1923):-

In this case, the appellant, a music teacher was appointed to teach music to a girl of 16 years of age. He had sexual intercourse with the girl under the pretence that his act was an operation to improve her voice. The girl had no knowledge that he was going to commit rape with her; otherwise she would not have given her consent for the act. She had given consent to the act under the mistaken impression that it was a surgical operation. The plaintiff was held guilty of rape. 

18). Morris vs. Neugent (1836):-

In this case, the defendant was passing in front of the plaintiff's house, he aimed to shoot plaintiff's dog who attempted to bite him. The dog ran away. But when the dog was returning, the defendant shot the dog dead. It was held that the right of private defence could not be pleaded.

19). Rex vs. New port (1929):-

In this case, a school teacher punished a pupil by canning five times for smoking outside the premises of the school. According to a rule smoking was prohibited inside and outside the school premises. It was held that when a father sends his son to the school he authorises the teacher to give reasonable punishment for the violation of the school rules. Held that the punishment was reasonable and necessary.

20). Smt. Kewal Pati vs. State of UP. (1995 SCC 600):-

In this case, a convict was attacked by another convict in jail and was killed due to failure of the jail authorities to protect him. The widow of the deceased convict filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for damage. The court awarded Rs. 1,00,000 compensation. 

21). Rylands vs Fletcher:-

In this case, Rylands employed independent contractors or engineers who were apparently competent to contract a reservoir on his land. In the course of the work the contractors came upon some old shafts and passages on Ryland's land. They communicated with the mines of Fletcher, a neighbour of Rylands, but no one suspected this for they appeared to be filled with earth. The contractors did not block them properly and when the reservoir was filled, the water from it burst through the old shafts and flooded Fletcher's mines. It was found as a fact that, while Rylands was had not been negligent, the contractors had been. Fletcher sued Rylands and the House of Lords held the latter liable.

22).   Stanley vs. Powell (1891):-

In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant were members of a shooting party. The defendant fired at a bird but unfortunately the shot from his gun hit an oak tree and rebounded and injured the plaintiff. It was held that it was not a battery and the defendant was not liable.

23). Hulton & Co. vs Jones:-

In this case, a news paper published an article in which some Artemus Jones was described as a church warden. He was accused of living with a mistress in France. The writer did not know that there was any person as Artemus Jones. He has invented an imaginary name for his article. But unfortunately for him there existed one person bearing the same name. He was an English Barrister. Those who knew him supposed that the article referred to him. It was held that the newspaper company was liable for defamation. 

24). Haynes vs. Harwood (1935):-

In this case, the defendant's horse van was left in a crowded street by his servant. A boy threw a stone on the horse and they bolted and started running without the driver causing danger to the people. The plaintiff, a police officer, who was on duty, saw that the people were in great danger and tried to stop the horse. He was able to stop the horse and in doing so he was seriously injured. He brought an action against the defendant. The defendant pleaded for the defence of 'Volenti non fit injuria'. The court held that in rescue cases, the maxim is not applicable and the defendant was held liable.

25). Wilkinson vs. Downtown:-

In this case the defendant, by way of a practical joke, told the plaintiff that her husband had broken both his legs in an accident. Hearing this, the plaintiff suffered nervous shock and got seriously ill. Hence the defendant was held liable.