1. S was owner of 300 sq. yds. of land in an approved residential colony.

MCD approved
building plan for 2!12 storey building on that land. S, in violation of sanction,
constructed 31h storey and on the top o f it also constructed a 5,000 litre water storage
tank. MCD demolished one storey constructed beyond sanction resulting in the
demolition of water tank also. S claims ·damages from MCD pleading malice. Decide
giving reasons.
2. As a part of grow more food campaign, a dam was constructed for irrigation across a
river. Provision was made for release of excess water through sluice. Due to
exceptionally heavy rainfall sluice proved inadequate and extra opening was made.
resulting in flooding the agricultural land of X. X suffered a severe loss of agricultural
production. Can X recover damages for the loss? Decide.
3. A circus lion escapes and injures some spectators. Discuss the liability of the manager
of the circus for the injury caused.
4. A famous biscuit company published a picture in a newspaper showing one famous

Cricket Player Sachin eating their biscuit. Advise him about his legal remedies.

5. A horse, who was left unattended on a highway by its owner, bolts causing risk of grave
injury to people. A spectator rushes to stop it, and is in the process gets injured. Can he
recover damages from the owner? Would it make any difference to your answer if
spectator was a police official on duty?
Ans : In Haynes v. Harwood, the defendant's servant left a horse van unattended in a
street. The horses bolted away and created danger to women and children on the road.
A police constable managed to stop the horses, but he himself was injured in that
process. Even though the policeman had taken the risk voluntarily, he was entitled to
claim compensation because he had gone to rescue women and children. The same is
the position if a person takes some risk to rescue property from a danger created by
the defendant.
6. A’, a barber was running a Saloon. ‘B’, a wealthy person was one of his customers. ‘A’
and ‘B’ quarrelled for some reason. ‘B’, with a malicious intention, to cause loss to ‘A’,
employed some barbers and opened a saloon just opposite to ‘A”s saloon and charges
for less. Consequently, ‘A’ lost his customers and suffered heavy loss. Can ‘A’ recover
damages from ‘B’?
Ans: Same facts as given in the case ASHBY v. WHITE
7. ‘X’, a banker refuses to honour customer’s cheque having sufficient funds in his hands
belonging to the customer. Customer intends to file a suit against the banker, will he
succeed?
 Ans: Sankar v. B.M., Vijaya Bank,2 it was held that dishonour of a cheque without
justification amounts to deficiency in service. The O.P. who dishonoured the cheque
issued by the complainant was held liable to pay compensation for the same
8. Plaintiff, the owner of a coal mines, brought an action against defendant, a Miner’s
Union, for inducing its workmen to make them to take certain holidays, for keep up the
price of coal, by that plaintiff suffered loss, whether the defendant’s are liable?
Ans: In South Wales Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal Co.,( motive)
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/south-wales-miners-federation-v-glamorgan-
coal.php

9. The plaintiff’s and the defendant’s dogs were fighting. The defendant was beating them
in order to separate them, the plaintiff was looking on. The defendant accidently hit the
plaintiff in the eye causing him a severe injury. The plaintiff brings an action against
the defendant can he succeed?
Ans: BROWN V KENDALL

10. The plaintiff resided in a house next to a roman Catholic Church, of which the defendant
was the priest and the Church bell was being rung at all hours of the day and night. The
plaintiff filed a suit for nuisance. Decide.
Nuisance as a crime
Public nuisance has been declared a crime under Section 268 of the Indian Penal
Code. Public nuisance occurs when a person commits an act that causes annoyance,
or injures or threatens to injure the rights of the general public, with respect to health,
safety, morals, convenience, or welfare of the general public. Basically, an act done to
the detriment of the public, or an omission when the act was necessary for the public
good, would constitute a public nuisance. Examples include blocking a public road,
unlawfully digging up a pit on public grounds, exploding fireworks on the streets,
operating a house of prostitution, harbouring vicious dogs, and unlicensed prizefights.
In Soltau v. De Held (1851), the plaintiff resided in close quarters to the roman
catholic church. The chapel bell of the church was rung all through day and night. It
was held that the continuous ringing of the bells constituted a public nuisance.

11. While the driver was taking petrol at the petrol pump, two strangers took a lift in a jeep.
Suddenly, the front-wheel failed and the Jeep becomes uncontrolled, both the strangers
were thrown away, one of them instantly died and another was injured. Discuss the
liability of defendant.
 VNFI( Consent of the Plaintiff must be free)
In the case of Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the plaintiffs had asked for a lift in the jeep
of the defendants and while travelling in it one of the screws of the wheel of the jeep
fell out, as a result, the jeep crashed and it caused the death of one of the plaintiffs. In
the case, the Court held that the defence of volenti non fit injuria will apply and thus
the defendants were not liable because by sitting in the jeep the plaintiffs had assumed
the risk of being injured in an accident.

12. A photographer was taking a photo in a horse show unfortunately he fell into horse
course and was injured by the galloping of a horse. Liability of Defendant
Ans: Issue

If negligence is established, a defendant may still avoid liability by raising the defence of
volenti non fit injuria. This defence applies to cases where the claimant consents to the
risk of injury, and prevents the claimant from succeeding if that risk manifests by
negating the duty of care.

The issue was whether the defence applied in this case, given that the claimant was within
the ring rather than behind the protective barriers.

Held

The High Court held the defendant not liable.

The High Court held that for the defence of volenti non fit injuria to apply, it was not
enough that the claimant consented to a generic risk of injury. Rather, the claimant had
to consent to the lack of reasonable care which produced the risk. This requires the
claimant to have complete knowledge and understanding of the extent and nature of the
risk.

In the case sporting events, however, spectators can be taken to know of and consent to the
risk of the sportsman making errors of judgement or skill, given the fast-paced nature
of the activity, unless the sportsman was acting with deliberate or reckless disregard for
the spectator’s safety.

In this case, the sportsman merely made an error of judgement, and the claimant had
 chosen to position himself close enough to risk such errors affecting him.

13. The plaintiff was hit by a train in the tunnel of the defendant railway company. The
railway company had given instructions to all the drivers of its trains that they have to
blow the whistle at the entrance of the tunnel and they should also slow the speed of
the train but the driver did not follow these instructions and negligently drove it inside
the tunnel, as a result of which the plaintiff was injured.

The defendant had taken the defence of volenti non fit injuria. Will he get damages?

Ans: Limitations on the application of volenti non fit injuria(Negligence of the

defendant)

In the case of Slater v. Clay Cros Co. Ltd. 1956] 2 QB 264, the plaintiff was hit by a
train in the tunnel of the defendant railway company. The railway company had given
instructions to all the drivers of its trains that they have to blow the whistle at the
entrance of the tunnel and they should also slow the speed of the train but the driver did
not follow these instructions and negligently drove it inside the tunnel, as a result, the
plaintiff was injured. The defendant had taken the defence of volenti non fit injuria but
the Court held that this defence could not be applied because even though the plaintiff
took the risk of walking inside the tunnel, this risk was enhanced by the negligence of
the driver. Thus, when a plaintiff gives his consent to take some risk, there is a
presumption that the defendant has not been negligent.

14. The plaintiff had a tumour on her breasts and therefore she went to the hospital to have
it removed. While operating her the doctor also removed the uterus even though it had
nothing to do with the tumour. Liability of Defendant.
Ans; Volenti non fit injuria( CONSENT MUST BE FREE)
In the case of Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital[6], a 40 year old married woman noticed a
lump in her breast but this pain does not affect her uterus. After the operation, she saw
that her uterus has been removed without any justification. The hospital authorities
were liable for this act. The patient’s consent was taken for the operation not for
removing the uterus.

If a person is not in a condition to give consent then his/her guardian’s consent is

sufficient.

15. the defendant and plaintiff had some disputes between them and the defendant,
therefore, ordered his servant to place rubbish across a pathway to prevent the plaintiff
from proceeding on that way and the servant took all care to ensure that no part of it
 was touching the part of the plaintiff’s property but with the passage of some time. The
rubbish slid down and touched the walls of the plaintiff and thus he sued for trespass.
The defendant will be liable?
Ans; Wrong done as a natural consequence of an act by Servant for Master with due
care
If the employee does an act which is done in pursuance of the instructions of the master,
then the master will be held liable for any wrong which arises out of such an act even
if all due care is taken by the employee in discharging his work.

In Gregory v. Piper(1829) 9 B & C 591, the defendant and plaintiff had some disputes
between them and the defendant, therefore, ordered his servant to place rubbish across
a pathway to prevent the plaintiff from proceeding on that way and the servant took
all care to ensure that no part of it was touching the part of the plaintiff’s property but
with the passage of some time. The rubbish slid down and touched the walls of the
plaintiff and thus he sued for trespass. The defendant was held liable despite his
servant taking all due care.

16. a porter of a railway company while working mistakenly believed that the plaintiff was
in the wrong carriage even though he was in the right one. The porter thus pulled the
plaintiff as a result of which the plaintiff sustained injuries. Liability of the Co. if any.

Ans; Mistake of servant Where a servant having a lawful authority to do some act on behalf
of his master makes an erroneous or excessive use of the authority causing loss to the
plaintiff, the master will be liable for the same. A servant has an implied authority to protect
the property of his master. If a servant, in an attempt to perform such a duty uses excessive
force, the act will fall in the course of employment. Poland v. Parr & Sons2 is an illustration
of the same. In that case, a carter suspected on mistaken but reasonable grounds that some
boys were pilfering sugar from his employer's wagon. In order to prevent the theft and
protect the employer's property, he struck one of the boys. The boy fell, was run over by the
wagon and consequently lost his leg. The act of the carter, though excessive, was not so
much excessive that the same could be considered to be outside the class of acts which the
servant had an authority to do. The master was, therefore, held liable for the same.

Bayley v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ry.3 is

another illustration of a misguided servant. One of the defendant's porters had the duty to
promote the comfort of their passengers and help them to board the right trains. The plaintiff
was in the correct train but the porter mistakenly thought that the plaintiff was in a wrong
train, and violently pulled him out of the carriage, thus causing him injuries. In this case, the
servant was acting under a mistaken belief that the passenger was in a wrong train and he also
used force to pull the passenger out of the train. The act of the servant was held to be within
the course of employment, which he had no duty to do but the defendants were held liable for
the same. According to Willes, J. :l "A person who puts another in his place to do a class of
acts in his absence necessarily leaves him to determine, according to the circumstances that
arise, when an act of that class is to be done and trusts him for the manner in which it is done;
and consequently, he is held answerable for the wrong of the person so entrusted either in the
manner of doing such an act, or in the doing such act under circumstances in which it ought
not to have been done : provided that what was done, was done, not from any caprice of the
servant, but in the employment."

17. 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.
Discuss the liability of Bank

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
18. The driver of the defendant company, willfully and against the express orders not to get
involved in racing or to obstruct other omnibuses, had driven to obstruct the omnibus
of the plaintiff. Liability of master if any?
In Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. (1862) EngR 839, the driver of the
defendant company, willfully and against the express orders not to get involved in
racing or to obstruct other omnibuses, had driven to obstruct the omnibus of the
plaintiff. In the case, the Court held that the defendant company was liable for the act
of driver because the driver’s act of driving the omnibus was within the scope of the
course of employment.

19. The plaintiff was a widow who owned 1000 pounds as dues on a mortgage and a
cottage. She went to the manager of the defendant, which was a firm of solicitors, and
she asked for his advice to get richer. The manager told her to sell her cottage and to
call up the amount of mortgage. She authorized the manager to sell the property and to
collect her money but he absconded with the money. Thus, she sued the defendant
company. Co. will be liable or not.
ANS- In Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co. (1912) A.C. 716, the plaintiff was a widow who
owned 1000 pounds as dues on a mortgage and a cottage. She went to the manager of the
defendant, which was a firm of solicitors, and she asked for his advice to get richer. The
manager told her to sell her cottage and to call up the amount of mortgage. She authorized
the manager to sell the property and to collect her money but he absconded with the
money. Thus, she sued the defendant company. It was held that the defendant was liable
for the fraudulent act of the manager because even a fraudulent act is not authorized, the
manager was authorized to take her signature and thus it was within the course of
employment

20.‘A’ has given some amount and cheque to his friend, Who was an employee of the bank
for depositing in the A’s amount. But the friend, instead of depositing in the A’s amount,
misappropriated it. Is the bank liable

Ans; State bank of india v shyama devi

vicarious liability; Principal and Agent
In Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co.[2] the managing clerk of a firm of solicitors, while acting
in the ordinary course of business, committed fraud against a lady client and got
transferred her immovable property for his own benefit was held liable along with the
agent Where the agent has done an act without the express or implied authorisation of the
principal, the principal may still be made liable if he ratifies the agent’s act but the act that
is ratified must have been done by the agent on his own behalf of the principal.[3] If it is
not done on behalf of the principle but by the agent on his own behalf, the principal cannot
be held liable for such act.