Law of Torts - I : Previous Year Questions (2014)

Answer the following questions in one sentence each. (10 x 1 = 10)

Q1. What do you understand by “Vicarious Liability”?

Ans. Generally, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and does not incur any liability for the acts of others. In certain cases, however, vicarious liability, that is the liability of one person for the act done by another person, may arise. In order that the liability of A for the act done by B can arise, it is necessary that there should be a certain kind of relationship between A and B, and the wrongful act should be, in a certain way, connected with that relationship.

It is based on two principles: qui facit alium facit per se (one who does an act through another is deemed in law to do himself) and respondeat superior (let the principle be liable).

Q2. Define "Inevitable Accidents".

Ans. Accident means an unexpected injury and if the same could not have been foreseen and avoided, in spite of reasonable care on the part of the defendant, it is inevitable accident. Inevitable accident says that a person cannot be held liable for an accident which was not foreseeable despite all care and caution taken from his side.

Q3. Explain "Res ipsa loquitur".

Ans. Res ipsa loquitur is a legal doctrine in tort law that means "the thing speaks for itself" and allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence without direct proof. It applies when the accident itself implies negligence, and the three key conditions are: the event would not have occurred without negligence, the defendant had exclusive control over the cause of the event, and the plaintiff was not at fault. This doctrine shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show they were not negligent.

Q4. Explain the "Doctrine of alternative danger".

Ans. Although the plaintiff is supposed to be careful in spite of the defendant’s negligence, there may be certain circumstances when the plaintiff is justified in taking some risk where some dangerous situation has been created by the defendant. The plaintiff might become perplexed or nervous by a dangerous situation created by the defendant and to save his person or property, sometime to save a third party from such danger, he may take an alternative risk. The law, therefore, permits the plaintiff to encounter an alternative danger to save himself from the danger created by the defendant. If the course adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his action against the defendant will not fail. The judgement of the plaintiff, should not, however, be rash.

Q5. What do you understand by "Mayhem"?

Ans. It is referred to as an aggravated form of battery. A tort that causes severe injury to the victim in such a way, he is unable to defend himself from the tortfeasor. It is closely intertwined with assault and battery. Mayhem deals with the disfigurement or loss of any part to physical injury caused by the tortfeasor.

Examples include: The disability of an arm, hand, finger, leg, foot, or eye.

Q6. Discuss the position of mental element in Tort.

Ans. In tort law, liability is generally not based on the defendant’s mental state; most torts do not require intent or motive, and a person may be liable even for unintentional or negligent acts, except in certain torts like malicious prosecution, deceit, or assault, where intention is essential.

Q7. What do you understand by Defamation?

Ans. Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation of another, he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference with the property. A man’s reputation is his property, and if possible, more valuable, than other property.

Under English Law, defamation is divided into two forms: -

1. Libel – It is the representation made in some permanent form, e.g., writing, printing, picture, effigy, or statute.
2. Slander – It is the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form; spoken words or gestures etc.

Q8. Discuss the "Doctrine of Pigeonhole theory".

Ans. The Pigeonhole Theory, propounded by Salmond, states that there is no general liability for all wrongful acts in tort. For an act to be a tort, it must fit into one of the recognized pigeonholes (i.e., established categories of torts). If a wrongful act does not fit into any recognized category, it is not actionable as a tort unless a new category is created by courts.

Q9. What do you understand by "Nervous Shock"?

Ans. Nervous shock refers to a psychiatric or mental injury caused by witnessing or experiencing a shocking, traumatic event due to another’s negligence. It must be a medically recognized mental condition, not mere fear, grief, or emotional upset.

Q10. What kinds of legal remedies may be provided in Torts?

Ans. Judicial/legal remedies are court-enforced solutions to a wrongful act and primarily include:

1. Damages (monetary compensation),
2. Injunctions (court orders to do or not do something), and
3. Specific restitution of property (returning property to its rightful owner).

These remedies aim to restore the injured party to their pre-tort position, compensate for their loss, or prevent future harm.

Another kind of remedy available under tort law are Extra-Judicial remedies, which refers to lawful actions taken by an injured party to address a wrong themselves, without the intervention of a court of law. These are often referred to as "self-help" remedies and must be exercised using a reasonable amount of force and in a lawful manner.

E.g., expulsion of trespasser, re-entry, abatement of nuisance, etc.

PART – B

Answer the following questions in 4-5 lines each. Each question carries 4 marks. (4 x 4 = 16)

Q11. Write a short note on Damnum Sine Injuria.

Ans. Damnum Sine Injuria is a legal maxim which means, “Damage without Legal Injury”.

In simple words, it means, causing actual harm or loss is not actionable if no legal right was violated (e.g., business competition resulting in lost profits).

The general principle on which this maxim is based upon is that if one exercises his common or ordinary rights, within reasonable limits, and without infringing other’s legal right; such an exercise does not give rise to an action in tort in favour of that other person. Damages can be in any form either in the form of any substantial harm or loss suffered from respect to the money, comfort, health, etc.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410) – In this case, the defendant, a schoolmaster, set up a rival school to that of the plaintiffs’. Because of the competition, the plaintiffs had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per scholar per quarter. It was held that plaintiffs had no remedy for the loss thus suffered by them. No legal right was violated.

1. Ushaben v. Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir (1978) – In this case, the plaintiffs sued for a permanent injunction against the defendants to restrain them from exhibiting the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. It was contended that the film hurt the religious feelings of the plaintiff in so far as Goddesses Saraswati, Laxmi, and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed. It was observed that hurt to religious feelings had not been recognised as a legal wrong. Moreover, no person has a legal right to enforce his religious views on another or to restrain another from doing a lawful act, merely because it did not fit in with the tenets of his particular religion. Since there was no violation of a legal right, request or injunction was rejected.

Q12. Write difference between Torts and Quasi Contract.

Ans. Distinction between Tort and Quasi Contract:

Q13. Write a distinction between volenti non fit injuria and contributory negligence.

Ans. Distinction between Volenti Non Fit Injuria and Contributory Negligence:

1. Basic Idea

1. Volenti non fit injuria applies when the plaintiff knowingly and willingly accepts the risk of harm. Since the risk is voluntarily taken, the defendant is not liable at all.
2. In contributory negligence, the plaintiff fails to take reasonable care for their own safety, and this lack of care contributes to the harm. Here, the defendant is still liable, but the compensation is reduced.

2. Consent vs. Carelessness

1. Volenti non fit injuria is based on free and informed consent. The plaintiff has effectively agreed to face the possibility of injury.
2. In contributory negligence, the plaintiff has not consented to the harm; instead, the injury results partly from their own carelessness.

3. Effect on Claim

1. Under volenti, the plaintiff is completely barred from recovering damages.
2. Under contributory negligence, the plaintiff may still recover damages, but the amount is apportioned according to their share of fault.

4. Examples

1. Volenti non fit injuria: A spectator at a sports event accepting normal risks of the game.
2. Contributory negligence: A pedestrian crossing the road while using a phone and getting hit by a vehicle. Both parties share blame.

Q14. What do you understand by Test of reasonable foresight?

Ans. According to this test, if the consequences of the wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote. The liability of the defendant is only for those cases which could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, placed in the position of the defendant/wrongdoer.

As per this test, if A commits a wrong, A will be liable only for those consequences which A could foresee. For whatever could not have been foreseen, is too remote a consequence of A’s wrongful act.

The Wagonmound Case

Case: Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engg. Co. Ltd. (1961) –

1. The Wagon Mound, an oil burning vessel, was chartered by the appellants of the Overseas Tankship Ltd. and was taking fuel at Sydney port.

1. At a distance of about 600 feet, the respondents, Morts Dock Company, owned a wharf, where the repairs of a ship including some welding operations were going on.

1. Due to the negligence of the appellant’s servants, a large quantity of oil was spilt on the water and the oil was carried to the respondent’s wharf.

1. About 60 hours thereafter, molten metal from the respondent’s wharf fell on floating cotton waste, which ignited the fuel oil on the water and the fire caused great damage to the wharf and equipment.

1. It was also found that the appellants could not foresee that the oil so spilt would catch fire.

1. The trial court applied the rule of directness and held the Overseas Tankship Ltd. liable. The Supreme Court of New South Wales also followed the Re Polemis rule and mentioning the unforeseeability of damage caused by fire was no defence, held the O.T. Ltd. liable.

It was held that the “The Test of Reasonable Foresight” is a better test, instead of “Test of Directness”.

PART – C

Answer the following questions in 400 words each. Attempt any three. Each question carries 8 marks. (3 x 8 = 24)

Q15. In 'Wagon Mound' and 'Re Polemis' cases the test for remoteness of damage were clearly established. According to you what test is most appropriate?

Ans. The cases of Re Polemis and The Wagon Mound represent two very different approaches to determining how far a defendant’s liability should extend.

In Re Polemis, the court applied the “direct consequence” test. According to this view, once the defendant’s negligent act has directly caused the damage, the defendant is liable even if the exact type or extent of damage was unforeseeable. This approach is very strict. It focuses on the chain of causation rather than on what a reasonable person could have predicted. While this ensures wide protection for victims, it may unfairly burden defendants by making them liable for highly unusual or unexpected outcomes.

On the other hand, The Wagon Mound introduced the “reasonable foreseeability” test, which has become more widely accepted. Under this test, the defendant is liable only for those kinds of damages that a reasonable person could foresee as a probable result of their negligence. This approach is more balanced because it ties liability to human foresight. It reflects the idea that people should only be held responsible for risks that they could realistically anticipate.

My Assessment: Why Foreseeability is More Appropriate

In my view, the test established in The Wagon Mound: The Reasonable Foreseeability Test, is the most appropriate for determining remoteness in the tort of negligence. It represents a more just and pragmatic approach to allocating liability in modern society.

1. Alignment with Fault Principle

Tort law, particularly negligence, is based on the fault principle. You are held responsible because you failed to take reasonable care when you ought to have foreseen the risk of harm.

1. The Direct Consequence Test from Re Polemis contradicted this by holding a defendant liable for a loss they could never have anticipated. It essentially punished them for the extent of the harm, not the nature of their fault.
2. The Reasonable Foreseeability Test ensures that the scope of liability matches the scope of the duty of care. If a reasonable person couldn't foresee the type of harm, they can't be expected to take steps to prevent it. It links the penalty to the degree of culpability.

2. Promoting Fairness and Practicality

The Re Polemis test led to potentially crushing and disproportionate liability for a defendant. If a minor negligent act (like dropping a plank) led directly to an unforeseeable catastrophic event (like a fire that destroys a ship), the defendant would bear the entire loss.

The Foreseeability Test draws a practical line, preventing an "infinite" chain of causation. It introduces an element of fairness and insurability by limiting liability to risks that an ordinary, prudent person would guard against. As Viscount Simonds famously said in The Wagon Mound, it is not "consonant with current ideas of justice or morality" to hold a person liable for consequences that no reasonable person would have anticipated.

3. Judicial Flexibility (The 'Kind of Harm' Rule)

Crucially, the modern application of the foreseeability test is not unduly rigid, thanks to the 'kind of harm' rule. The courts have been flexible:

1. You don't need to foresee the extent of the damage (The "Eggshell Skull" Rule): If the type of injury is foreseeable, the defendant is liable for its full, unexpected severity due to the victim's existing condition (e.g., Smith v Leech Brain & Co).
2. You don't need to foresee the exact manner of the damage: As long as the type of harm is foreseeable, the defendant is liable even if it occurred in an unusual way (e.g., Hughes v Lord Advocate).

This flexibility ensures that while liability is limited to foreseeable risks, it remains robust enough to protect claimants who suffer severe but factually connected losses, striking a much better balance than the previous "all or nothing" approach.

Conclusion

While Re Polemis protected victims by allowing broad recovery, it lacked fairness and proportionality. In contrast, The Wagon Mound’s foreseeability test offers a more rational and balanced method. It ensures that defendants are liable for the harm they could realistically foresee, but not for extraordinary or remote consequences.

Therefore, the foreseeability test is the more appropriate and widely accepted standard for determining remoteness of damage in modern tort law.

Q16. In case of volenti non fit injuria, consent is the essential element required for the application. Comment.

Ans. The maxim volenti non fit injuria means “to a willing person, no injury is done.” The core idea is that when a person freely agrees to face a particular risk, they cannot later claim damages if that risk materialises. Therefore, consent is not just important, it is the foundation of this defence.

1. Consent Must Be Free and Informed

For the defence to succeed, the plaintiff’s consent must be real, voluntary, and based on knowledge of the danger. A person can only be said to have consented if they were aware of the nature and extent of the risk and still chose to take it.

For example, a spectator at a cricket match knows that the ball may enter the stands and accepts that risk by attending the game.

If consent is obtained through force, fraud, or unequal bargaining power, it is not valid. This reflects the principle that a person cannot be said to “willingly” accept harm if their choice was not genuinely free.

2. Consent Can Be Express or Implied

Sometimes consent is express, such as signing a consent form before surgery. In other cases, it is implied from conduct, like a participant in a sport agreeing to the ordinary risks of the game. In both forms, the defendant must show that the plaintiff consciously accepted the possibility of harm.

3. Knowledge Alone Is Not Enough

Mere awareness of danger does not automatically amount to consent. A person may know that a situation is dangerous but still have no real option but to be there. For instance, an employee who continues to work in risky conditions cannot be said to have voluntarily accepted the risk if refusing to work means losing their livelihood. Courts often emphasise this distinction to prevent unfair use of the defence.

4. Complete Defence

If valid consent is established, the defendant is completely freed from liability. This makes the requirement of true consent even more crucial. Because the consequence is so serious, total dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim, courts apply strict scrutiny in determining whether consent actually existed.

5. Limits on the Defence

Even when consent is present, the defence does not apply if the defendant has acted with negligence beyond the accepted risk, or has been reckless or unlawful. Consent only covers risks that were reasonably expected, not additional dangers created by careless or intentional misconduct.

Relevant Case Laws:

1) Lakshmi Rajan v. Malar Hospital Ltd. (1998) – In this case, the complainant, a married woman, aged 40 years, noticed development of a painful lump in her breast. The lump had no effect on her uterus, but during surgery, her uterus was removed without any justification.

It was held that the opposite party, i.e., the hospital, was liable for deficiency in service. It was also held that the patient’s consent for the operation did not imply her consent to the removal of the uterus.

When a person is incapable of giving his consent because of his insanity or minority, consent of such person’s parent or guardian is sufficient. Thus, a surgeon performing a surgical operation of a child with the guardian’s consent is protected even though the child protests against the operation.

2) R. v. Williams (1923) - The defendant was a singing teacher who convinced his 16-year-old pupil to have sexual intercourse with him under the guise of a medical or surgical procedure to improve her breathing and singing voice. The girl submitted to the act, genuinely believing it was a legitimate medical intervention and not a sexual act. The Court of Appeal upheld the defendant's conviction for rape and indecent assault.

Conclusion

Consent is unquestionably the essential element of volenti non fit injuria. Without clear and voluntary acceptance of risk, the defence collapses. The principle is built on personal autonomy. If someone knowingly and willingly embraces a risk, the law respects that choice and prevents them from blaming others for the consequences. Thus, consent forms the backbone of this defence and determines when it will successfully apply.

Q17. If the unauthorised and wrongful act of the servant is so connected with the authorised act as to the mode of doing it and is not independent act, the act of the servant be considered in the course of employment. Discuss with the help of decided cases.

Ans. In the law of vicarious liability, an employer is responsible for the wrongful acts of a servant only when those acts are committed “in the course of employment.” This does not mean that every wrongful act must be authorised. What matters is whether the wrongful act is closely connected to the task the servant was employed to do. If the servant’s act is merely an unauthorised mode of performing an authorised duty, the employer may still be liable. However, if the act is totally independent or for the servant’s personal benefit, the employer is not liable.

Unauthorised vs. Independent Act:

The key idea is that the law recognises a difference between:

1. an unauthorised act (beyond the scope of employment), and
2. an unauthorised mode of doing an authorised act (within the scope of employment).

Vicarious liability applies in the second situation because the act is still connected to the servant’s job, even though carried out improperly.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Century Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Northern Ireland Transport Board

In this case, a petrol tanker driver was transferring petrol, an authorised act. While doing so, he lit a cigarette and threw the match on the ground, causing an explosion. Although lighting the cigarette was clearly unauthorised and careless, it happened during the performance of his assigned duty.

The court held that the employer was liable because the negligent act was merely an improper way of performing his authorised work.

2. Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co.

In this case, the defendant’s driver in defiance of the express instruction not to race with, or cause obstruction to, other omnibuses, tried to obstruct a rival bus, and thereby caused an accident. The driver had been engaged to drive and his act was a negligent mode of driving and it was held to be within the course of employment, in spite of the express prohibition. The defendant company was held liable.

3. Bayley v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Co.

Here, a porter mistakenly pulled a passenger off a train thinking he was on the wrong one. Although his action was wrongful, it was done in the belief that he was assisting the railway in carrying out its duties. The employer was held liable because the porter’s act was done in furtherance of the employer’s business, even though done negligently.

When Liability Does Not Arise — Independent Acts

Where the servant’s act is entirely for personal reasons and not linked to his job, the employer is not liable.

1. Case: Beard v. London General Omnibus Co.

In this case, at the end of the journey, the driver of a bus went to take his dinner. During the temporary absence of the driver, the conductor drove the bus in order to turn it round to make it ready for the next journey and negligently caused an accident whereby the plaintiff was injured. It was not the conductor’s duty to drive the bus. Since the driving was not the kind of act which the conductor was authorised to do, the conductor was acting out of the course of his employment and the defendant company was, therefore, held not liable.

Conclusion

The principle is clear:

If the servant’s wrongful act is so closely connected with his authorised duties that it can be seen as an improper mode of doing them, the employer is vicariously liable. Courts look not at whether the act was authorised, but whether it was connected with what the servant was employed to do. This approach ensures fairness by holding employers responsible for risks naturally arising from their business activities, while protecting them from liability for purely personal acts of their employees.

Q18. What are the essential conditions for the application of the Rule of Strict Liability? What grounds can be taken as defence in suit for strict liability?

Ans. It has been noted in the Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), the House of Lords laid down the rule recognising ‘No Fault’ liability. The liability recognised was ‘Strict Liability’, i.e., even if the defendant was not negligent or rather, even if the defendant did not intentionally cause the harm or he was careful, he could still be made liable under the rule.

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868):

In this case, the defendant got a reservoir constructed, through independent contractors, over his land for providing water to his mill. There were old disused shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractors, failed to observe and so did not block them. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjoining land. The defendant did not know of the shafts and had not been negligent although the independent contractors had been. Even though the defendant had not been negligent, he was held liable.

Essentials of Strict Liability:

For the application of the rule, the following three essentials should be there: -

1. Some dangerous thing must have been brought by a person on his land.
2. The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
3. It must be non-natural use of land.

1. Dangerous Thing:

According to this rule, the liability for the escape of a thing from one’s land arises provided the thing collected was a dangerous thing, i.e., a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes. In Rylands v. Fletcher, the thing so collected was a large body of water. The rule has also been applied to gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, sewage, flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes, and rusty wire.

2. Escape:

For the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher to apply, it is also essential that the thing causing the damage must escape to the are outside the occupation and control of the defendant. Thus, if there is projection of the branches of a poisonous tree on the neighbour’s land, this amounts to an escape and if the cattle lawfully there on the neighbour’s land are poisoned by eating the leaves of the same, the defendant will be liable under the rule. (Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board, (1878)).

Relevant Case Law (Case where there was no escape and, therefore, there was no liability under the rule):

1. Read v. Lyons and Co. – In this case, the plaintiff was an employee in the defendant’s ammunition factory. While she was performing her duties inside the defendant’s premises, a shell, which was being manufactured there, exploded whereby she was injured. There was no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. Even though the shell which had exploded was a dangerous thing, it was held that the defendants were not liable because there was no “escape” of the thing outside the defendant’s premises and, therefore, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher did not apply to this case.

3. Non-Natural Use of Land:

Water collected in the reservoir in such a huge quantity in Rylands v. Fletcher was held to be non-natural use of land. Keeping water for ordinary domestic purposes is ‘natural use’. For the use to be non-natural, it “must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of community.”

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Sochacki v. Sas (1947) – In this case, it has been held that the fire in a house in a grate is an ordinary, natural, proper, everyday use of the fire place in a room. If this fire spreads to the adjoining premises, the liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher cannot arise.

1. Noble v. Harrison (1926) – It has been held that the tree (non-poisonous) on one’s land are not non-natural use of land. In this case, the branch of a non-poisonous tree growing on the defendant’s land, which overhung on the highway, suddenly broke and fell on the plaintiff’s vehicle passing along the highway. The branch had broken off due to some latent defect. It was held that the defendant could not be made liable under the rule of strict liability as growing of trees is not non-natural use of land.

1. T.C. Balakrishnan v. T.R. Subramanian (1968) – In this case, it was held that the use of explosives in a maidan (open ground) even on a day of festival is a “non-naturalzz’ use of land because under the Indian Explosives Act, for making and storing explosive substances even on such places and at such occasions, licenses have to be taken from the prescribed authorities.

Defences/Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability:

The following exceptions to the rule have been recognised by Rylands v. Fletcher and some later cases: -

1. Plaintiff’s own default;
2. Act of God;
3. Consent of the Plaintiff;
4. Act of Third Party;
5. Statutory Authority.

1. Plaintiff’s own Default:

Damage caused by escape due to the plaintiff’s own default was considered to be a good defence in Rylands v. Fletcher itself. If the plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into the defendant’s property, he cannot complain for the damage so caused.

In Ponting v. Noakes (1849), the plaintiff’s horse intruded into the defendant’s land and died after having nibbled the leaves of a poisonous tree there. The defendant was held not liable because the damage would not have occurred but for the horse’s own intrusion to the defendant’s land. The rule of strict liability didn’t apply here for another reason also, i.e., that there was no escape.

2. Act of God:

Act of God or Vis Major was also considered to be a defence to an action under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher by Justice Blackburn himself.

Act of God has been defined as, “Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility.”

The defence of act of god can be pleaded, if the escape has been unforeseen and because of supernatural forces without any human intervention.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. S.K. Shangrung Lamkang v. State of Manipur (2008) – In this case, two persons died due to electrocution caused by a falling of a high tension electric wire from its pole while they were proceeding riding a scooter. The respondents contended that fall of the electric wire was due to the lightning storm resulting in breaking of a tension disc insulator and not due to negligence of any of the respondents.

The Gauhati High Court explained that since the management of the supply of electricity was a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, when harm was caused to any one on account of any cause in the operation of the activity, the respondents, who were responsible in respect to the said activity would be strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who were harmed in the course of operation of the said activity. Such liability, the court held, was not to be subject to any exception to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.

The court relied on the Apex Court’s decision in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shail Kumar, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:

“a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure of human life is liable under Law of Torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the manager of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known in law as “strict liability”.

3. Consent of the Plaintiff:

In case of volenti non fit injuria, i.e., where the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous thing on the defendant’s land, the liability under the rule Rylands v. Fletcher does not arise. Such a consent is implied where the source of danger is for the ‘common benefit’ of both the plaintiff and the defendant.

Relevant Case Law:

1. Carstairs v. Taylor (1871) – In this case, the plaintiff hired ground floor of a building from the defendant. The upper floor of the building was occupied by the defendant himself. Water floored on the upper floor leaked without any negligence on the part of the defendant and injured the plaintiff’s goods on the ground floor. As the water had been stored for the benefit of both the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant was held not liable.

4. Act of Third Party:

If the harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger, who is neither the defendant’s servant nor the defendant has any control over him, the defendant will not be liable under this rule.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Box v. Jubb (1879) – In this case, the overflow from the defendant’s reservoir was caused by the blocking of a drain by strangers, the defendant was not held liable for that.

1. Rickards v. Lothian (1913) – In this case, some strangers blocked the waste pipes of a wash basin, which was otherwise in the control of the defendants, and opened the tap. The overflowing water damaged the plaintiff’s goods. The defendants were held not liable.

5. Statutory Authority:

An act done under the authority of a statute is a defence to an action for tort. The defence is also available when the action is under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Statutory Authority, however, cannot be pleaded as a defence when there is negligence.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co. (1894) – In this case, the defendant company had a statutory duty to maintain continuous supply of water. A main belonging to the company burst without any negligence on its part, as a consequence of which the plaintiff’s premises were flooded with water. It was held that the company was not liable as the company was engaged in performing a statutory duty.