Hall v.

Brooklands Auto-Racing Club (1933)

Facts

Defendant - owner of a racing track for motor cars.

Track –> Oval, 100 feet wide.
Strip of grass near the track –> 4 feet, 5 inches in width.
Iron railing –> 4 feet 6 inches high.
Stands were provided for spectators but most chose to stand near the railing.
Two competing cars collided, one being flung over the railing, killing two spectators.
No such incident had occurred in the 20 years of the Defendant running races.
Defendant was sued in negligence by a spectator that was injured during the incident by
saying that the arena wasn’t built in a way that was safe for the spectators and the
spectators weren’t given any warning of the potential dangers.

Decision

Duty of defendant to ensure that track was as safe from danger as reasonable care and skill
could allow.
Defendant under no duty to guard against the risks that aren’t foreseeable (reasonably).
Since no accident of such a nature had occurred in 20 years, this incident cannot be
considered as foreseeable.
Hence, Defendant is not liable and is not required to mitigate the risk of any similar events
that could have been revealed with any amount of diligence.

Paris v. Stepney Borough Council (1951)

Facts

Claimant suffered damage to one eye during war.

Claimant employed in garage but was not provided safety goggles when his job entailed him
to deal with dangerous equipment.
A piece of metal hit him in his good eye, blinding him.
Claimant sued the employer under negligence.

Decision

Defendant was found guilty under breach of duty of care owed to the Claimant.
Seriousness of harm caused to Claimant is very relevant to how a reasonable person would
behave.
 Court said that the duty of care is owed by the Defendant to the Claimant (even after
knowing his history) and not to a hypothetical “reasonable” employee.
Since Claimant was already blind in one eye, the potential of a greater harm was
significantly higher.
A reasonable person (or employer in this case) should take greater steps to ensure their
protection.

Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council (1954)

Facts

Claimant worked in fire department.

Claimant was answering a call that involved a woman trapped under a lorry.
This meant that a heavy piece of equipment was needed to lift the lorry.
Usual vehicle was unavailable
Claimant’s superior ordered to place it on top of a truck, without securing it.
Claimant was injured when the equipment fell over him as the truck braked at a red light.
Claimant sued employers for negligence.

Decision

Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s cannot be held liable under negligence.
Object which defendant was trying to achieve is relevant in determining standard of care.
Since it was an emergency situation, the defendant’s actions (order) was of high social
utility by ensuring the safety of a woman’s life.
Risk of injury was not that high, so fire department cannot be expected to take precautions
against harming claimant.

Mullin v. Richards (1998)

Facts

Defendant –> 15yr old girl who was play-fighting with rulers with another 15yo.
Claimant –> The other 15yo.
During this game, the defendant’s ruler snapped apart, a part of which hit the claimant’s eye,
blinding her.
Claimant sued the defendant under negligence due to her injuries.

Decision

Court of Appeals held the defendant did not breach any duty of care owed to the claimant.
Established the principle that: The defendant’s identity as a child is relevant to the standard
of care.
 A child is only to be held under standards of reasonableness as one of a child of the
same age and not of those of an adult.
15 yr old will not have foreseen any injury coming from the game, so is unable to take any
steps in safeguarding the claimant from harm.
Defendant acted like a reasonable child, hence no breach.

Robert v. Ramsbottom
Facts

Defendant was driving the car when he suffered a stroke.

Defendant knew he did not feel well
He had some awareness while everything was happening.
During this, he had two collections (of which he had no recollection of).
Defendant kept driving regardless, crashing into claimant’s parked car.
Claimant suffered injuries and property damage.
Claimant filed against defendant under negligence.

Decision

High Court ruled in favour of claimant, holding the defendant liable.

Defendant had not completely lost control, which comes under objective standard of care
imposed on drivers.
The fact that the defendant did not acknowledge his symptoms did not matter.

Baker v. Willoughby (1970)

Facts

Claimant (Mr. Baker) was a pedestrian who was knocked down by the defendant driving a
car in Sept 1964.
Negligent driving fo the defendant caused the claimant to suffer serious injury to his left leg,
causing him to be unable to work in labour markets as he used to before.
This led to reduced earnings (monetary loss)
November 1967, Mr. Baker was a victim of an armed robbery and suffered gunshot wounds
to the same leg that was affected in the car accident and amputated.
Claimant sued the defendant further under negligence for both the amputated leg and the
accident.

Decision

Defendant was held liable for the losses and reduced earnings, even after the amputation of
leg.
 Court said that if the defendant was not negligent while driving, the claimant would not
have suffered injuries to his leg, which were further worsened by the gunshots and thus
amputated.
Hence he was still liable as if the shooting never happened and must compensate the
claimant for losses after the amputation.
Stated: “When there are two accidents that are consecutive and contribute to the same
injury, the original defendant would be liable for the overall injury.“

Jobling v. Associated Dairies (1982)

Facts

Claimant was a butcher at Associated Dairies Ltd.

Claimant slipped on the floor and suffered from a slipped disc during his course of
employment, due to his employer’s negligence.
Due to these injuries, he was given orders to only do light work, which cut his earnings by
50%.
Four years later, the claimant was diagnosed with a pre-existing spinal disease (not due to
accident) which would disable him and cause him to be out of work.

Decision

Employer would only be liable for the damages and loss of earnings during the four years
of employment.
Court did not follow the decision in Baker v. Willoughby, calling it an exception to the normal
test of causation.
Pre-existing spinal condition must be considered and all factors taken into account, so that
the court does not award excessive compensation.
Case was considered a case of the eggshell skull rule.
Relevant that the illness would cause full disability.

Jones v. Livox Quarries (1952)

Facts

Workmen in quarry and a few slow-moving vehicles were on the way to the canteen for a
lunch break.
Way was around a stationary excavator that was turning.
Plaintiff jumped on one traxcavator and stood on its towbar at the back of it, holding onto
two uprights so that some parts of his body were behind the traxcavator.
Workers were already instructed not to ride the vehicles in the quarry.
The traxcavator stopped at a corner to change gears
 Dumper, driven by the servant of the quarry owners, followed the traxcavator, and crashed
into its back.
Plaintiff was severely injured.
Queen’s Bench found contributory negligence on the plaintiff’s part.
Appeal went to the Court of Appeals on the grounds that the plaintiff did not cause the
injury.

Decision

Appeal was dismissed.

1. A person is found guilty of contributory negligence if he ought to have foreseen that if he
did not act as a reasonable man, he might get hurt.
2. Once contributory negligence is proven, the person guilty has to bear the proper share of
responsibility for the consequences.
3. Consequences do not depend on foreseeability, but on causation.
Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered “damage as a result partly of his own fault”.

Froom v. Butcher (1976)

Facts

Plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt while driving.

Plaintiff said he did not like seatbelts and has seen drivers getting trapped under them
during a crash.
After a crash, plaintiff suffered head and chest injuries, also breaking a finger.
All these injuries could have been avoided if he wore the seatbelt.
Crash was entirely defendant’s fault
Defendant contended that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
Queen’s Bench held in favour of the plaintiff as there was no statutory compulsion to wear
seatbelts at that time.
Defendant appealed.

Decision

Appeal was allowed.

1. Determining whether one is guilty of contributory negligence is a matter of cause of
damage and not of the cause of the accident.
2. Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by his failure to wear a seatbelt, making him guilty of
contributory negligence. (All injuries except the broken finger.)
3. Damages paid for by the defendant were reduced by 20%.

Jackson v. Murray (2015)

Facts

Claimant, a 13yr old girl, stepped out from a minibus onto the road.
Defendant was driving his car rashly and crashed into her.
Damages were assessed at 90% due to contributory negligence but was further reduced to
70% after an appeal.
Defendant appealed on the basis that the assessment was wrong or there was no
contributory negligence

Decision

Appeal allowed.
Damages to be reduced by 50% as both parties bore equal responsibility.

Smith v. Baker (1891)

Facts

Plaintiff was employed by railway company to drill holes in a rock near the crane.
Crane (operated by employees of the railway company) lifted stones, and at times, swung
the rocks over the plaintiff’s head without warning.
Plaintiff was fully aware of the danger he was exposed to.
A stone fell off the crane and injured the plaintiff.
Plaintiff sued the employers for negligence under the Employer’s Liability Act 1880.
Jury ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
Defendants appealed which reversed the decision of the jury.
Plaintiff further appealed to the House of Lords.

Decision

Appeal allowed.
1. The mere fact that the plaintiff undertook or continued employment while being fully
aware of the danger arising out of another activity in the workplace cannot be used to
show the maxim volenti non fit injuria is applicable.
2. The question of whether the plaintiff has undertaken such a risk is one of fact, not of law.
3. The evidence in the case shows that the plaintiff did not voluntarily undertake the risk of
injury.
4. This is so in common law and in cases arising under the Employer’s Liability Act 1880.

Gray v. Thames Trains Ltd. (2009)

Facts
 Appellant was a passenger in the Ladbroke Grove train crash, which was caused due to the
respondent’s negligence.
Crash caused Gray to develop PTSD.
While receiving treatment, he fatally stabbed someone who walked out in front of his car.
Convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and detained in the
hospital.
He sued the respondents for negligence, claiming damages for his conviction, detention and
emotional suffering.
Also sought an indemnity against any claims that might be brought by his victim’s family.

Decision

House of Lords held that Clunis v. UK meant that a person could not recover damages that
were results of a sentence imposed upon them for a criminal act.
Lordships held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation for loss of earnings as
this resulted from his own criminal act.
Claim for general emotional suffering and an indemnity were also results of having killed his
victim.
Ex turpi causa still applies and the court would not assist him to recover.

Patel v. Mirza (2016)

Facts

Patel had given Mirza €620,000 to bet on shares in a company with insider information.
Agreement between them amounted to conspiracy to commit the offence of insider dealing
(Acc. to s53 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993).
Inside information did not materialise and no illegal act was committed.
Patel sought to recover the money claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Decision

Patel was successful in his claim to recover his money.

Reliance rule in Tinsley v. Milligan should no longer be followed.
A claimant will not be prevented from enforcing his claim to his property just because it was
paid to perform an illegal act, unless allowing his claim would be contrary to relevant public
policy.

Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd. (1929)

Facts
 Claimant was known as the lawfully wedded wife of a famous racehorse owner and former
general of the Mexican Army.
Claimant and husband lived separately but was often visited by said husband at her
workplace.
Defendant’s newspaper published a photograph of claimant’s husband with a woman to
whom he was allegedly engaged to.
Claimant sued under Defamation

Decision

Court of Appeal held that the publication in question was capable of constituting
defamation.
Found the jury was right to find the publication made the reasonably minded person believe
the claimant’s moral character was questionable.

Lewis v. Daily Telegraph (1964)

Facts

Two national newspapers (defendant) published articles headed “Inquiry on Firm by City
Police” and “Fraud Squad Probe Firm” which alleged a police inquiry into the claimant’s firm
that he was a chairman of.
Claimant sued for defamation, claiming the articles were impugning guilt for fraud.
Judge considered the articles to be capable of meaning that the claimants were guilty of
fraud.
Judge directed the jury that it was open for them to find the words to carry such a meaning.
Juries in both actions against each of the defendants held that the words were defamatory
and granted large sums of damages.
Defendant’s appealed on the basis that the judge should have directed the jury that the
articles were not capable of conveying that the claimants were guilty of fraud.
Court of Appeal set aside the verdicts and ordered a new trial.
Claimants appealed.

Decision

Appeal dismissed.
New trial of each action should be ordered.
Judge should have directed to the jury that the articles were not capable of beating the
meaning that the claimants were guilty of fraud.

Catholic Child Welfare Society v. Institute of the

Brothers of the Christian Schools (2015)
Facts

Defendant was the board of managers for a schoo.

School was connected to an unincorporated association which was aimed at bringing
education to the children.
To facilitate this, the Institute provided the school with lay brothers from their organisation
as teachers and other school staff.
School employed the lay brothers.
Several of these brothers sexually abused the claimants.
Defendant was held vicariously liable at trial for the torts committed.
Claimant argued on appeal the Institute was also vicariously liable.
Institute was arranged in corporate-style hierarchy.
However, the lay brothers were not considered as employees in the Institute and had no
contractual relationship.
Brothers had a moral obligation to obey the Institute and in practice, it exercised a great
deal of control over their lives.
Institute saw to the brothers’ needs using their funds.
Brothers’ earnings were given to the Institute.
Institute were heavily involved in running the school, since the school’s headmaster was
usually a senior brother.

Decision

Supreme Court held in favour of the claimants.

Relationship between the Institute and the brothers could give rise to vicarious liability.
It was “akin to contract”.
Torts were sufficiently connected to that relationship.

Lachaux v. Independent Print Ltd. (2019)

Facts

Claimant was a French aerospace engineer who had lived with his British wife Afsana in the
UAE.
Divorce in 2011, instituting divorce proceedings in UAE courts and sought custody of their
son Louis.
Afsana went into hiding in 2013 with Louis stating that she won’t be getting a fair trial in UAE
courts.
In August, UAE courts awarded custody of Louis to Lachaux (Claimant).
In February, Lachaux initiated criminal prosecution against Afsana for abduction.
Took custody of Louis in October.
 In January and Feb, various British newspapers published articles alleging Lachaux’s
conduct towards his wife during the marriage and in the course of divorce proceedings.
Lachaux sued them under defamation.
Articles discussed Lachaux’s abusive and violent behaviour during their marriage and his
attempt at hiding Louis’s passport in order to prevent Afsana from taking Louis out of the
UAE.
UK High Court held that the articles did involve publication of defamatory statements which
had caused serious harm.
Newspapers appealed to the Court of Appeals which upheld the High Court’s decision,
which prompted them to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Decision

The Supreme Court ruled that claimabts bringing defamation actions must prove serious
harm to their reputation by actual facts instead of the inherent tendency of their words.
Court emphasized on the Defamation Act 2013.
Court upheld the lower court’s rulings and held the newspapers liable.

Mohamud v. W. M. Morrison Super Markets PLC.

(2016)
Facts

Mohamud used a petrol station kiosk and approached a staff with a question.
Staff responded in an aggressive manner, demanding that Mohamud leave the premises
immediately.
While leaving, the employee assaulted him.
Mohamud sued the supermarket saying it was vicariously liable for the assault committed
by one of its employees.
Trial judge rejected the claim on the basis that there was no sufficient link between the
employee’s role and the assault.
Subsequent appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal.
Mahmoud then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Appeal allowed.
Court held that the current ‘close connection’ test had been used in a number of cases at
the Supreme Court level and as a result of this:
They did not wish to significantly deviate from the precedent.
However, the court felt that a simplification of the test is more desirable.
 Requires consideration of the employee’s functions and whether there is a strong connect
between the wrongful conduct and the employer.
On this basis, the court held that it whilst it was a gross abuse of his position, it was in
connection with the business by which he was employed.

Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy (2006)

Facts

M. C. Jain commission of inquiry was examining facts and circumstances under commission
of inquiry act 1952 relating to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, in which Tamil Nadu CM
Jayalalitha’s summon was being contemplated.
Defendant alleged that the CM of TN had prior info on the attack and she had connection
with the LTTE, however did not disclose where he got this information from.
Plaintiff engaged as senior council to represent CM
Plaintiff cross examined the statements of defendant, in the same, the defendant made a
remark against the plaintiff to the effect that he has two wives which is irrelevant.
Defendant apologised for it and said that “According to my information, Mr. Jethmalani
(Plaintiff) has been receiving money from the LTTE being deposited in his son’s account in
Citibank in New York.”
For such allegations, the plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the defendant was guilty of vicious
and gross libel for which the plaintiff claimed to entitled exemplary damages.
Plaintiff claimed that he acquires a good reputation in India and these statements damage
the personal, political and professional reputation of the plaintiff.

Decision

Held by Justice Pradeep Nandrajog that statement made by defendant was prima facie
defamatory.
Case of exceeding privilege and that by itself was held to be evidence of malice.

E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones (1963)

Facts

Defendant’s newspaper published an article written by its Paris correspondent.

The article alleged that a man named Artemus Jones was a church warden from Peckham
who was seen with a woman other than his wife.
Plaintiff was neither a church warden nor was he from Peckham, instead he was a lawyer
from North Wales who used to contribute articles to the defendant’s newspaper.
Both parties accepted that the defendant’s newspaper was using the name Artemus Jones
in a fictious manner and was not intentionally referring to the plaintiff.
 Plaintiff produced witnesses who read the article and thought it was instead actually
referring to the plaintiff.

Decision

Lower Courts sided with the plaintiff.

Tort of libel consists of using language which others, while knowing the circumstances,
would reasonably think to be defamatory of the person injured by it.
Fact that defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff is not an adequate defense.
Regardless of intent, the defendant’s actions caused injury to the plaintiff.

Lister and Others v. Hesley Hall Ltd. (2002)

Facts

Warden was employed at the annex of a boarding school for boys.

Services include being responsible for day-to-day running of the school, discipline of the
boys, organisation of daily activities and care of the boys after school hours.
Between 1979 and 1982, the warden had sexually abused quite a few of the boys which was
not known by the employers.
Sexual abuse took numerous forms and was usually administered in the context of the
warden’s method of control and discipline.

Decision

House of Lords held that the vicarious liability can arise for unauthorised, intentional
wrongdoings committed by an employee who is acting for his own gain as long as there
exists a connection between the wrongdoings and the work for which he was employed to
render it within the scope of employment.
Court rejected the restrictive view that vicarious liability could only arise when the
employee is acting for his employer’s benefit.
Regarding the facts of the case, the Court held that there was a sufficient connection
between the work that the warden was employed to do and the abuse that he committed
was well within his scope of employment.
This holds the warden’s employers vicariously liable

Rustom K. Karanjia and Anr v. Krishnaraj M.D.

Thackersey and Others (1970)
Facts

Thackersey, a business owner was the chairperson of the Indian Cotton Mills Federation
and Textile Control Board.
 Rustom Karanjia, a journalist in BLITZ newspaper published an article called “House of
Thackersey” alleging that they made enormous profits which were concealed by playing
around with their financial statements, allowing them to evade income tax which came with
a penalty of 4 crores.
Thackersey sued Karanjia for compensation of rs 3 lakhs for defamation. Trial Court sided
with the plaintiff.

Decision

There was no express duty to communicate with the defendant about the issue as the
journalist can comment fairly and if necessary, severely on a matter of public interest,
provided the allegations of facts made are truthful.
Since the law recognizes his right to comment on matters of public interest, the journalist
obviously owes an obligation to the public to have his facts right and is ready to prove it at
any point.
Defendant has failed to prove the same and therefore, plea of “qualified privilege” cannot be
allowed.