LECTURE 11

Evans v Triplex Safety Glass Co, Ltd. [1936] 1 All ER 283

Kubach v Holland [1937] 3 All ER 907

Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha and others (AIR

1996 SC 550

CASE FACTS:

. Medical Services rendered by hospital/nursing home free of charge are

not in the purview of Section 2(1) (o) of the Act.

3. Medical Services rendered by independent Doctor free of charge are

under Section 2(1) (o) of the jurisdiction of the Act.

4. Medical Services rendered against payment of consideration are in the

scope of the Act.

5. A medical service where payment of consideration is paid by third

party is treated as in the ambit of the Act.

6. Hospital in which some person are charged and some are exempted
from charging because of their inability of affording such services will
be treated as consumer under of Section 2(1) (d) of the Act.

LECTURE 12

Read v Lyons (1947)

What counts as a dangerous thing under strict liability?
: Musgrove v. Pandelis
What classifies as non-natural use of the land under strict
liability?

State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators(1965)

Due to overflow of water from a canal, damage was done to
plaintiff’s property. Held that use of land for construction of a
canal system is a normal ordinary use.

MukeshTextile Mills v. SubramanyaSastry(1987)

•A was owner of a sugar factory. B owned land adjacent to A’s
sugar factory. A stored quantity of molasses and it escaped to
B’s land and damaged his crop. B sued A.
•Collecting molasses in large quantities was held to be non
natural use of land and if a person collected such things on his
land and escaped to neighboursland, he was liable.

Carsairs v Taylor ( 1871)

In this particular case, strict liability did not apply because the
gutter box draining water from the roof had been maintained
for the plaintiff’s good as well.
DEFENCES TO STRICT LIABILITY:
Statutory Authority:

Green v. Chelsea Waterworks (1894)

Thoughts on strict liability:
The non-natural use of land does not mean that this
particular requirement can only be invoked when the
land is being used only for making explosives etc; it
can also be invoked when a vehicle catches fire and
damages someone else’s property for eg.
LECTURE 13:
Defamation

Hulton Co. v Jones (1910)

It is irrelevant if the defendant planned to defame the
plaintiff; if a reasonable man may think it refers to P;
then its defamation.
Mere vulgar abuse is not defamation as in Rambo v
Cohen.
Under Dow Jones v Gutnick, an article published on
the World Wide Web would also be defamation in the
area where the plaintiff’s image could be heard;
irrespective of where the article itself was originally
physically published.
DEFENCES TO DEFAMATION
TRUTH- Don’t have to verify every statement; just the
sting of the charge- Shah v Standard Bank (1999)
Repetition rule- just stating that fact was mentioned
somewhere else is not enough for avoiding
defamation.
DEFENCES TO LIBEL IN A NEWSPAPER:

the libel is inserted in the newspaper without actual

malice;
•the libel is inserted in the newspaper without gross
negligence; and
•there is an apology before the commencement of the
action or at the earliest opportunity afterwards.
DAMAGES AWARDED TO LIBEL VICTIMS
For aggravated damages; the defendant must have
pursued the libel case consistently; he must also have
shown no remorse as in Sutcliffe v Pressdram Ltd
(1991).

VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
The fact that the conduct engaged in by the employee was
prohibited by the employer is not sufficient to absolve the
employer of liability; as in
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co (1862) as well
as in Rose v Plenty.
In these particular cases; even though employee’s
actions were forbidden by the employer; they fell
within the general course of employment.
Liability of trespass to persons

In Lister v
Hesley Hall Ltd, the employer was found
vicariously liable for the actions of the
warden; who sexually abused boys.

Thoughts on vicarious liability:

In vicarious liability, the employer is responsible for the acts of
the employee in the course of his employment. This holds true
even if the employee is carrying out an act prohibited by the
employer as long as the employee was conducting an activity
that he had been hired for; as in Limpus as well as Rose v
Plenty.
ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS

A positive voluntary act of the D which directly and

intentionally causes interference with a chattel in the
actual possession of the plaintiff.
•Requirementsto bringactionin trespass to chattels:
(1)Direct; and
(2)intentional interference.

Absolute Liability (modified version of

Strict Liability
1. The nature and quantum of
damages that are payable to
the plaintiffs are compensatory
in nature i.e. in accordance to
the amount of loss suffered by
the plaintiff, damages will be
paid equivalent to the amount
lost.
2. The defendants can take the
help of several defences like
the following:-
· Damage caused due to
natural use of land
· Consent of the Plaintiff
· Plaintiff’s Own Default
· Act of Stranger
· Act of God or Vis Major
· Common Benefit of Plaintiff
Strict Liability)
1. The nature and quantum of damages
that are payable to the plaintiffs are
exemplary, the compensation provided to
each aggrieved party is much greater in
amount that is the damages paid are
more as in such cases people lose their
lives and environmental conditions
become life threatening.
3. In this case, it is an absolute liability put
upon the defendants where the scope of
any defence being taken is not allowed.
They are held liable for payment of
damages under all circumstances.
and the Defendant
· Statutory Authority

If any of the defences apply to a

particular case correctly as
decided by the presiding Judge,
then the defendant will not be
held liable.