Gen Def. (Case: Topic)

Question 1

Stanley v. Powell ([1891] 1 QB 86 )

Answer 1

Inevitable Accident

the defendant and the plaintiff went to a pheasant shooting. The defendant fired at a pheasant but the bullet after hitting to Oak Tree get reflected, changed its direction and hit to the plaintiff and he suffered serious injuries. The incident was considered an inevitable accident and the defendant was not liable in this case.

Question 2

Brown v. Kendall [60 Mass. 292, 6 Cush. 292 (1850)]

Answer 2

Inevitable Accident

The dogs of the plaintiff and the defendant were fighting with each other. The defendant tried to separate them and while doing so, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in the eye causing him some serious injuries. The incident was purely an inevitable accident for which no claim could lie. So, the court held that the defendant is not liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff as it was purely an accident.

Question 3

Nichols v. Marshland [1876]

Answer 3

Act of God
Working of natural forces:

The defence was successfully pleaded. There the defendant created some artificial lakes on his land by damming some natural streams. Once there was an extraordinary heavy rainfall, stated to be the heaviest in human memory, as a result of which, the embankments of the lakes gave way. The rush of water washed away four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. It was held that the defendants were not liable as the loss had occurred due to Act of God.

Question 4

Kallu Lal v. Hemchand

Answer 4

Act of God
Occurrence must be extraordinary

The wall of a building collapsed due to normal rainfall of about 2.66 inches. The incident resulted in the death of the respondent’s children.
The court held that the defence of Act of God cannot be pleaded by the appellants in this case as that much rainfall was normal and something extraordinary is required to plead this defence.
Thus, the appellant was held liable.