Q: Describe the citation of Shaymal Baran Saha v State of W.B. (AIR 1998 Cal. 203) ?

Ans: The accident itself constitutes reasonable evidence of negligence in the particular circumstances. If a brick falls from a building and injures a passerby on the highway, or the goods while in the possession of a bailee are lost, or a stone is found in a bun, or a bus going on the road overturns, or death of a person is caused by live broken electric wire in a street, or portico of a newly constructed hospital building falls down and results in the death of a person, a presumption of negligence is raised.

In Shaymal Baran Saha v State of W.B. (AIR 1998 Cal. 203), the plaintiff (a young boy) was standing in a queue for purchasing ticket of cricket match. Arrival of very large number of people into the queue ended in a stampede. The boy trampled under the feet of panic-stricken crowd. The incident occurred due to failure of Cricket Association conducting the match and State Govt. to ensure safety/security of people in queue and to provide proper facilities such as tickets, drinking water and medical relief. There was no evidence to show that Cricket Association demanded increase in Police arrangement in view of the large crowd. The defence by State behind the shield of delegated Sovereign power was held to be untenable. The defendants, Cricket Association and State Govt., thus, liable in negligence for breach of their lawful duties towards the plaintiff. The principle of res ipsa loquitur clearly applies here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria ?

Ans: Tort in Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria. Injury means the legal right has been violated.  In Injuria Sine Damno, there is an injury without damage.  Here, the legal right has been violated  but there is no damage and the essential condition in Tort is that the legal right must be violated. Thus, Injuria Sine Damno is to be considered in Tort.  Damnum Sine Injuria means there are damages but there is no injury. Here, there are damages but the legal right has not violated. The essential condition in tort is that the legal right must be violated but here there is no violation of legal right. Hence, Damnum Sine Injuria is not considered in tort.
Read more

Q: What is Re Polemis Case in tort of remoteness of damage?

Ans: In Re Polemis case, court rejected test of reasonable foresight and applied test of directness of tort of remoteness of damage.  Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Due to negligence of defendant servant, a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Ship was burnt totally. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonable foresee. Test of directness was applied.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962) ?

Ans:  The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962). Lokumal i.e. Defendant no. 1, a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan was employed as a motor driver (on probation) of a government jeep car under the Collector of Udaipur. The car had been sent for repairs. On February 11, 1952, while driving the car back from the workshop after the repairs were done, defendant no. 1 knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the side of the public road. Jagdishlal was severely injured and his skull and backbone were fractured. Three days later, he died in the hospital.  The court held that the state will be liable to pay compensation for the Tort of his employee.
Read more