20 Landmark

Cases of Law of
Torts
With Legal
Maxims and
Principles

By Dr Neel Mani Tripathi

(PhD and Post Doc in Law)
1. Ashby v. White (1703)
Principle Developed: Injury without
Damage (Legal Rights)
• Facts: The defendant, a returning
officer, refused to allow the plaintiff
to vote in an election, although the
candidate supported by the plaintiff
ultimately won.
• Held: The court held that a violation
of a legal right, even without
monetary damage, gives rise to a
cause of action. The denial of the
right itself was sufficient to sue.
• Legal Maxim: Ubi jus ibi remedium –
"Where there is a right, there is a
remedy."
• Significance: This case emphasized
that any infringement of a legal right,
 regardless of damages, is actionable
under tort law.

2. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932)

Principle Developed: Neighbour
Principle and Duty of Care
• Facts: A woman consumed ginger
beer from a bottle containing a
decomposed snail and fell ill. She
sued the manufacturer for
negligence.
• Held: Lord Atkin introduced the
“Neighbour Principle,” stating that a
person owes a duty of care to those
who may be foreseeably affected by
their actions.
• Legal Maxim: Sic utere tuo ut
alienum non laedas – "Use your
 property in such a way as not to harm
others."
• Significance: This case laid the
foundation for the modern law of
negligence by imposing a duty of care
on manufacturers.

3. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

Principle Developed: Strict Liability
• Facts: The defendant built a
reservoir on his land, which burst and
flooded the plaintiff's mine. The
defendant had taken reasonable
care, but the harm occurred.
• Held: The defendant was held
strictly liable for the escape of a
dangerous thing brought onto his
land.
 • Legal Maxim: Qui sentit
commodum, sentire debet et onus –
"He who benefits must also bear the
burden."
• Significance: Established the rule of
strict liability for the non-natural use
of land.

4. Gloucester Grammar School Case

(1410)
Principle Developed: Damnum Sine
Injuria (Damage without Legal Injury)
• Facts: A rival school opened nearby,
causing financial loss to the plaintiff
school.
• Held: The court ruled that no legal
right was infringed, so the claim
failed despite the damage suffered.
 • Legal Maxim: Damnum sine injuria –
"Damage without injury (to a legal
right) is not actionable."
• Significance: Highlighted that loss
alone, without infringement of a legal
right, is not actionable.

5. Vaughan v. Menlove (1837)

Principle Developed: Reasonable Man
Standard
• Facts: The defendant built a
haystack negligently, which caught
fire and damaged the plaintiff's
property.
• Held: The court applied the
"reasonable man" standard to
assess negligence. The defendant’s
subjective judgment was irrelevant.
 • Legal Maxim: Ignorantia juris non
excusat – "Ignorance of the law is no
excuse."
• Significance: Introduced the
objective standard of care in
negligence cases.

6. Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

(1856)
Principle Developed: Definition of
Negligence
• Facts: The defendant water
company failed to prevent damage
from an unexpected frost that
caused a pipe to burst.
• Held: Negligence was defined as the
omission to do what a reasonable
 person would do or doing what a
prudent person would not do.
• Legal Maxim: Negligentia semper
habet damnum – "Negligence always
causes damage."
• Significance: Provided the classic
definition of negligence in tort law.

7. Hulton & Co. v. Jones (1910)

Principle Developed: Defamation
• Facts: The defendant published an
article referring to a fictional
character named "Artemus Jones,"
coincidentally causing harm to the
reputation of the plaintiff sharing the
same name.
 • Held: Even unintentional defamation
is actionable if it causes reputational
harm.
• Legal Maxim: Res ipsa loquitur –
"The thing speaks for itself" (the harm
is self-evident).
• Significance: Reinforced the
principle that defamation can occur
even if unintended.

8. Haynes v. Harwood (1935)

Principle Developed: Rescue Cases and
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
• Facts: The defendant left horses
unattended, which bolted. A
policeman, in rescuing the public,
was injured.
 • Held: The court ruled that the
defense of "voluntary assumption of
risk" does not apply to rescuers
acting out of necessity.
• Legal Maxim: Salus populi suprema
lex – "The welfare of the people is the
supreme law."
• Significance: Protects rescuers from
legal defenses like volenti non fit
injuria.

9. Bourhill v. Young (1943)

Principle Developed: Proximity in Duty
of Care
• Facts: A woman suffered shock after
witnessing a motorcycle accident
from afar. She sued for nervous
shock.
 • Held: The court ruled that the
defendant did not owe her a duty of
care due to a lack of proximity.
• Legal Maxim: Causa proxima, non
remota spectatur – "The immediate
cause, not the remote one, is
considered."
• Significance: Limited the scope of
liability based on foreseeability and
proximity.

10. Read v. Lyons (1947)

Principle Developed: Absolute Liability
Exception
• Facts: Plaintiff, a worker, was injured
by an explosion while on the
defendant’s premises.
 • Held: The court held that strict
liability does not apply if the escape
occurs on the defendant’s land.
• Legal Maxim: Nullus commodum
capere potest de injuria sua propria –
"No one can benefit from his own
wrong."
• Significance: Narrowed the scope of
strict liability.

11. Scott v. London & St. Katherine

Docks Co. (1865)
Principle Developed: Res Ipsa Loquitur
• Facts: A sack of sugar fell from the
defendant’s premises and injured the
plaintiff.
 • Held: The burden of proof shifted to
the defendant as the accident spoke
for itself.
• Legal Maxim: Res ipsa loquitur –
"The thing speaks for itself."
• Significance: Established the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in tort
law.

12. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

Principle Developed: Absolute Liability
• Facts: A leakage of oleum gas from a
factory in Delhi caused severe harm
to the public. The defendant argued
that reasonable care had been taken
to prevent such incidents.
 • Held: The Supreme Court introduced
the principle of absolute liability,
holding that enterprises engaged in
hazardous activities are strictly liable
for any harm caused, irrespective of
precautions.
• Legal Maxim: Res ipsa loquitur –
"The thing speaks for itself."
• Significance: This case created an
exception to the Rylands v. Fletcher
rule, removing defenses like act of
God and third-party intervention for
industries involved in hazardous
activities.

13. Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P. (1965)

Principle Developed: State Liability in
Tort
 • Facts: The plaintiff’s gold was seized
by the police and negligently
misappropriated. The plaintiff sued
the state for negligence.
• Held: The Supreme Court held that
the state was immune as the act was
performed during the discharge of
“sovereign functions.”
• Legal Maxim: Rex non potest
peccare – "The king can do no wrong."
• Significance: Limited state liability
for acts carried out under sovereign
functions, but this principle has been
criticized in modern times.

14. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

(1928)
Principle Developed: Foreseeability and
Duty of Care
• Facts: A railway guard’s act
indirectly caused an explosion,
injuring a woman far away. She sued
for negligence.
• Held: The court ruled that the
defendant did not owe a duty of care
to the plaintiff because the harm was
not foreseeable.
• Legal Maxim: Injuria non remota
causa sed proxima spectatur – "The
law considers the immediate cause,
not the remote one."
• Significance: Introduced the
foreseeability test as a limitation to
the scope of duty of care.
15. Hedley Byrne v. Heller (1964)
Principle Developed: Negligent
Misstatement
• Facts: The plaintiff relied on
financial advice provided negligently
by the defendant, leading to financial
loss.
• Held: The court recognized liability
for negligent misstatements causing
financial harm when there exists a
special relationship between the
parties.
• Legal Maxim: Caveat emptor – "Let
the buyer beware."
• Significance: Extended negligence
liability to careless statements
causing pure economic loss.
16. Wagon Mound Case (1961)
Principle Developed: Remoteness of
Damage
• Facts: Oil leaked from the
defendant's ship, leading to a fire
that damaged the plaintiff’s wharf.
The fire was not a foreseeable
consequence.
• Held: The court ruled that
defendants are only liable for
damages that are foreseeable.
• Legal Maxim: Novus actus
interveniens – "A new intervening act
breaks the chain of causation."
• Significance: Limited the extent of
liability to foreseeable harm only.
17. Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills
(1936)
Principle Developed: Negligence in
Product Liability
• Facts: The plaintiff suffered
dermatitis due to defective
undergarments containing harmful
chemicals.
• Held: The manufacturer was held
liable for negligence in failing to
ensure the product’s safety.
• Legal Maxim: Qui facit per alium
facit per se – "He who acts through
another acts himself."
• Significance: Expanded the rule in
Donoghue v. Stevenson to product
liability cases.
18. State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati
(1962)
Principle Developed: State Liability in
Non-Sovereign Functions
• Facts: A government vehicle
negligently hit and killed a pedestrian
while performing non-sovereign
duties.
• Held: The state was held vicariously
liable for the negligence of its
employee during non-sovereign
functions.
• Legal Maxim: Respondeat superior –
"Let the master answer."
• Significance: Expanded state
liability to acts performed under non-
sovereign functions.
19. Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985)
Principle Developed: False
Imprisonment and Compensation for
Violation of Rights
• Facts: Bhim Singh, an MLA, was
wrongfully arrested and prevented
from attending a legislative assembly
session.
• Held: The Supreme Court awarded
compensation for wrongful
detention and violation of
fundamental rights.
• Legal Maxim: Actio personalis
moritur cum persona – "A personal
action dies with the person" (but
rights survive to protect liberty).
 • Significance: Strengthened
remedies for constitutional torts and
the protection of personal liberty.

20. Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar (1983)

Principle Developed: Compensation for
Wrongful Detention
• Facts: Rudul Shah was illegally
detained for over 14 years despite
being acquitted of all charges.
• Held: The Supreme Court awarded
compensation for the gross violation
of the plaintiff’s right to personal
liberty.
• Legal Maxim: Ex turpi causa non
oritur actio – "No action arises from a
wrongful cause."
• Significance: Marked a shift in
Indian jurisprudence, recognizing
monetary compensation as a
remedy for violation of fundamental
rights.