Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Allahabad
Law Agency, 9 University Road, Allahabad-2. Pp. xli + 544. Price Rs. 36.
and needs reconsideration.7 In that case a student, who lost one year of
his career due to the negligence of the school authorities in calculating
the attendance, was denied the relief on ground of lack of precedents.
The decision is obviously unjust.
In chapter 2 various general defences have been exhaustively dealt with.
While discussing volenti non fit injuria the author rightly takes note of the
relevant provisions of Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, of England,
which restricts the rights of a person to limit or exclude his liability for
negligence. The author should have compared the cases of Thomas v.
Ouartermaines and Smith v. Baker,9 which he has discussed.8* He has
also not mentioned about the disapproval of the Thomas case by the
House of Lords in Smith. Although the author has discussed that the
consent should be free, the aspects of consent to illegal acts and consent
to breach of statutory duty have not been mentioned.10
In chapters 4, while discussing vicarious liability, the author has
referred to the Supreme Court decision in Sitaram v. Santanuprasad.11
He has compared various cases including Ricketts v. Thomas Tilling Lrc/.,ia
and has discussed the majority opinion in Sitaram but has not referred
to the dissenting opinion of Subbarao J. regarding constructive liability.
The author has also discussed in detail the vicarious liability of the state
and he rightly describes the position in this regard as unsatisfactory by
observing that it is "absurd if we continue to apply English rule [of
exemption of state from liability] which has been discarded even in the
country of its origin."13
In the chapter on remoteness of damage, two important cases, viz., Roe
v. Minister of Health14 and Smithy. Leech Brain & Co. Ltd.9Vi and also re-
moteness principles vis-a-vis property have not been discussed. Similarly,
in the chapter on nervous shock, the relevant Indian cases like H.I.
Haltigua v. Mohana Sundaram^ and Dipchand Kundanmal Marwari v.
Manak Chand Multanmal Marwari17 have not been discussed.
The author has not merely mentioned the position of law of torts but
at places the relevant position of other branches has been mentioned. In
the context of assault and battery in chapter 6, he refers to the offences
S.P. Singh*