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 of 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.

Answer: MCD is not liable. It is dangerous to construct additional floors (above the
sanctioned limits) in a building and MCD was only working in favour of the health
and wellness of the residents of the society. There was however a malicious intention
yet it was a legal act and S can only claim compensation if he proves that MCD’s act
was illegal in nature and through that he suffered injury.

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.

Answer: Exceptionally heavy rainfall is an act of god. Furthernore, X was also one of
those who benefitted from grow more food campaign and hence he cannot claim for
any losses.

3. 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?

Answer: As this is a case of rescue due to the negligence of horse owner (defendant)
hence the principle of volent non fit injuria won’t apply here as there was a grave
threat to other people and in process of evading that threat, the spectator got injured.
The answer would be the same if the spectator is changed with a police official on
duty as in any circumstance, the incident occurred due to the negligence of horse
owner and a police officer also had to go out of his general line of duty to sustain
injuries and avoid a danger accident.
4. 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’?
Answer: No, A cannot recover any damages from B as it is a case of Damnum Sine
Injuria (Damages suffered without any legal Injuries) where damage is the loss
incurred by A but with no legal injury.

5. ‘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?
Answer: Yes, costumer will succeed as the banker is under a duty to entertain and
honour cheque of a client having sufficient funds. (London Joint Stock Bank v.
Macmillian and Arthur.)

6.  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 defendants are liable?

Answer: Yes, the defendants in the present instance are liable because the right of the
workers is not an absolute right and must be seen in relation to the right of others.
The union instigated other workers to breach contracts which is illegal as per the
case of (Southwaves Mineral Federation v. Glam Organ Company)

7. 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?
Answer: No, the defendant is not liable because he was not negligent in his conduct.
One can be liable if he/she were at fault. Defendant was acting with “ordinary care
and caution” by the standards of a reasonable man. Moreover, the defendant can
successfully take the defence of inevitable accident since the damage occurred despite
 him taking proper care and caution. Hence, the defendant in the present situation is
not liable. (Brown v. Kendall)

8. ‘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?
Answer: The bank is not liable. In Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co. it was mentioned that
master is liable for the fraudulent acts of his/her servant/agent, however, in this case
defendant acted more in capacity of A’s agent, not bank’s.

9. A circus lion escapes and injures some spectators. Discuss the liability of the manager
of the circus for the injury caused.

Answer: The manager of the circus would be absolutely liable as lion is a wild animal
which is inherently dangerous. If a person brings to his possession and inherently
dangerous thing which is a wild animal in this case, even legally, and it escapes then
liability for injuries inflicted will be absolute.

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.
Answer: The church bell being rung at all times seems unreasonable and
inconvenient for society at large. Hence, the priest is liable.

11. 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.
Answer: If plaintiff’s image has been used without his prior consent, then Mr. Sachin
can sue the biscuit compony for invasion of privacy and misappropriation as his
image was used for commercial purposes as well.

12. 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.
 Answer: The defendant won’t be held liable since the strangers voluntarily took the
lift. The defence of volenti non fit injuria will apply here and thus the defendants will
not be liable because by sitting in the jeep, the plaintiffs had assumed the risk of
being injured in an accident. (Padmavati v. Dugganaika)

13. 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

Answer: No Liability. The photographer put himself in the dangerous position so he

14. 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.

Answer: The defendant cannot take the defence of volenti non fit injuria here because
even though the plaintiff took the risk of walking inside the tunnel, the risk was
enhanced by the negligence of the driver. Thus, the plaintiff will get the required
damages. (Slater v. Clay Cros Co)

15. 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.
Answer: As there was no informed consent of the plaintiff to have her uterus removed
before the operation, the doctor will be liable for damages. If a person is not in a
condition to give consent, then his/her guardian’s consent is sufficient (Lakshmi
Rajan v. Malar Hospital).

16. 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?
17. 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.
18. 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
19. 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?
20. 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.