Torts notes

Cases

1. Bradford Corp v. Pickles

Not all harms amount to torts – damnum sine injuria
Bad motive is irrelevant as there was no legal injury
2. Martin v. Watson
Malicious prosecution
3. Grimshaw v. ford motors
Exemplary damages
4. Honderson v. syndicates
Concurrence of contractual and tortuous liability
5. Leak v. National Trust
Earth slide on defendant’s land resulted in damages to the plaintiff’s land – omission was held to be the
cause of the damage
6. Wilkinson V. downtown
Defendant caused the plaintiff to fall ill by telling her that her husband had suffered injuries. Amounted to
tort as there was breach of legal right and that he intended to commit that act
7. Ashby V. white
Denied voting – principle of presumed damage
8. Constantine V. Imperial hotel
Refusal to the right to stay in the hotel – principle of presumed damage
9. R v. Dica
Consent stands vitiated as it was mired with false and hidden information
10. Smith v. Baker
Plaintiff consented to work in a stone cutting area for drilling work, subsequently injuring himself, VNFI
does not apply
11. Illot v. Wilkes
In this case a notice was kept about there being spring guns as a defense mechanism on trespass to
property, here if the person trespasses, he will be held liable for trespass and will not be able to claim
volante
12. Bird v. hollbrook
When there is no notice about spring guns, and a trespasser is injured because of the same, he cannot have
been assumed to take up the risk and therefore can claim damages under the defense of volante
13. Woolridge v. Sumner
Photographer injured at a horse race by a galloping horse, defendant not liable
14. Condon v. Basi
Reckless play of games invited claims for damages.
15. Imperial chemical industries v. shatwell
If a statute imposes a duty on the employer and he breaches that duty, he cannot take the defense that the
employee consented to that risk.
16. Lane v. Holloway
Elderly claimant hit the defendant and the defendant delivered a severe blow to the eyes of the claimant,
received damages as he did not consent to this damage. This is because the damage surpassed the limits of
reasonable application of force.
17. Murray v. Haring Arena
The claimant was struck with a puck while watching an ice hockey match. No claim available due to
voluntary assumption of risk.
18. Bolton v. stone
Defendant is not negligent if the harm so caused is not foreseeable. Hitting a sixer and the ball escapes the
premise of the stadium and hits a woman walking to her car in the parking lot.
19. Slater v. clay cross co ltd
A woman walking in a narrow train tunnel, is struck with a moving train due to the negligence of the
driver. Held, the defendant cannot claim VNFI as there was no reason to believe that the train would
approach her at that point in time and she would be struck by it if not for the negligence of the driver.
20. Haynes v. Harwood
Policeman stopped an unruly pair of horses from injuring a group of children, injured in the process, held
he can claim damages and VNFI would not apply as this was a case of rescue.
21. Dan v. Hamilton
A woman boards a cab in which the driver was in a drunken state, as a consequence of the same, he crashes
and dies, the plaintiff brings an action for claims, the defendant cannot claim VNFI as there was only on
knowledge of risk and no assumption of the same. Also, VNFI does not apply to cases of negligence.
22. Morris v. Murray

23. Holmes v. Bagged

Where a spectator refused to leave the playing ground and the defendant captain of the time forcibly
removed the plaintiff, private defense to property was not available, as the captain of the team had no
possession of the ground in his personal capacity. Here, if the defendant had removed the claimant
forcefully at the orders of the club that owned the ground, he would not have been liable as he did as a
necessity and by virtue of the a statutory right so conferred on him by the owners.
24. Pits v. Hunt
Both plaintiff and defendant were hammered and decided to take a ride, plaintiff encouraged the unlicensed
defendant to ride. No compensation was given.
25. Kirk v. Gregory
The defendant removed jewelry off a dead person’s body and kept it in a safe for safe keeping
 Held, this was a case of trespass
26. Cope v. Sharpe
Necessity trumps liability, fire in the house case
27. Scott v. Shephard
Right to private defense extends to causing injury to 3 rd parties but the conduct must be reasonable. 5 stalls,
lit fire cracker.
28. Chatterson v. Gerson
A surgeon who operates on the wrong patient due to administrative mix up will still be liable for tort of
trespass to person.
29. Joyce v. O’Brien
Parties stole a ladder and loaded it in a car, claimant rode in the back, while driving, got injured because of
the ladder, defendant claimed defense of illegality.
30. Delaney v. Pickett
Claimant and defendant driving to a said place with consignments of Cannabis, get into an accident,
wherein claimant is injured and seeks redressal from defendant, claim succeeds as the negligence in driving
would have been present even when the element of illegality would not have been present.
31. Manchester corp v. Farnworths
Power station erected – emitted poisonous fumes – nuisance inevitable – defense is applicable
32. Tata and Lyle v greater London Council
Where nuisance resulted from the erection of new ferry terminal only due to lack of reasonable care, the
defense of statutory authority is not applicable.
33. Brown v. Kendall
Getting hurt when two dogs start fighting – inevitable accident
34. Nichols v. Marsland
Artificial lake – extraordinary rains – destruction in plaintiff’s land – defendant could not have reasonably
foreseen such a torrential rain.
35. Nitro-glycerin case
In the case, the defendant and his agent were carrying a wooden package unaware of the contents of the
same to the station, on the way, on leakage of the product, they opened the packaged to discover
explosives, which exploded thereafter. Held, they were not liable for the wreckage.
36. Fardon v. harcourt
The dog in a car – claimant injured by the sudden aggression of the otherwise docile dog – not liable as it
could not reasonably foreseen
37. Stanley v. Powell
Defendant was in a shooting range – shot at a pheasant – the pellet bounced and hit the plaintiff instead –
defendant not liable as it was not reasonably foreseen.
38. Samira Kohli v. Prabha Manchanda
 Questions about a patient’s consent
39. Condon v. Basi
Foul-play negates the defence of volenti non fit injuria
40. Benjamin v. Storr
If there is a case of public nuisance, then the claimant must be able to prove that apart from the damage
suffered as collective by the people, he/she suffered some extraordinary and special damages to which he
brings a claim for.
41. Campbell v. Padington corp
Erection of something that may block the view of an important procession and thereby lead to failure in
sale of tickets may be used as a claim to receive damages.
42. Leanse v. Egerton
The claimant was injured by falling glass due to the negligence of the defendant of not repairing a broken
window pane despite having adequate time to fix it. The damages were granted.
43. Dwyer v. Mansfield
Obstruction by forming of queue due to shortage of a said product – does not lead to claim for damages –
No special damages for the plaintiffs.
44. Read v. Lyons
Police officer injured on the factory premise of the defendant due to explosions of shells – rule of rylands
and fletcher does not apply as there is no escape of dangerous substance to begin with.
45. Ponting v. Noakes
Plaintiff’s horse was injured when it leapt over the defendant’s land to eat leaves of poisonous tree – strict
liability does not apply as there was no escape. Plaintiff’s own default
46. Green v. Chelsea Waterworks
A main constructed by the defendant burst open – held no liable as there was a statute that guided the
construction of the main.
47. Hoare v. Mcalpine
Vibrations form a pile driving caused structural damage to the plaintiff – defendant no held liable due to
lack of negligence and the already abysmal condition of the building.
48. Rickards v. Lothian
The act of the third party could not be used to hold the defendant liable.
49. Perry v. Kendrick transport
The basis of the defense of act of third party is that it is not possible for the defendant to affect the behavior
of the plaintiff.
50. Lee v. cheung
Definitions of an employee
51. Mersey Docks v. coggins
 Where there are two masters to a single servant, the master that holds the controlling power will have said
to be responsible in the light of any negligence.
52. Stevenson Jordan V. Macdonald and Evens
Contract of service v. contract for services
Former is integral to the working of the business and latter is an accessory to the working of the business.
53. Bayley v. Manchester Railway company
The porter in erroneous belief that the claimant had entered the wrong train, pushed him out, held, the
master will be liable as the porter had done an authorized act in an unauthorized manner.
54. Beard v. London Omnibus
Conductor in the absence of the driver tried to turn the bus for return journey, thus injuring the plaintiff,
held master will not be responsible as he had not authorized such an act.
55. Letang V. cooper
The driver unintentionally ran his vehicle over the legs of a woman sunbathing, the woman bought an
action against the same after three years, the suit was time barred and she could not apply for negligence,
hence she tried to apply the tort of trespass to person (battery), it was held that when the act was committed
negligently and unintentionally, it fell under the ambit of negligence.
56. Haystead V. chief constable
The police officer strikes a woman who is holding a baby- the baby falls down as a result of that – held the
police officer is liable for trespass (battery).
57. Wilson v. Pringle
Definition of hostile touching
57.1. Non-Consensual
57.2. right to bodily integrity is absolute
in this case a patient may deny treatment (St. George v. S) and a person on hunger strike may not be
forced to eat (B v. Croydon)
58. R v. Ireland
Threatening words may amount to assault. Malicious silent phone calls too.
59. WILKINSON V. DOWNTOWN
The defendant tells the claimant, a married a woman, that her husband met with an accident and was
injured- led to trauma- this is will fall under the ambit of tort.
60. Bird v. Jones
A man wanted to go through a certain lane which was obstructed with seats, he tried to climb into the
enclosure, successfully enough. Two police officers are stationed there and offer the person an alternative
route, which he does not take, this does not fall under the ambit of wrongful restraint as there was no
complete restraint.
Small points to be kept in mind

 Indirect acts of trespass lead to action of nuisance and direct acts fall under the ambit of trespass.
1. Nuisance
 Anything done to cause hurt or annoyance to either property or self all the while not
amounting to trespass
 If this annoyance or hurt is caused incidentally while carrying out statutory duties, it
will not fall under the ambit of Nuisance and hence the defense will be satisfied
(Dunne v. North Western Gas Board)
 Public nuisance refers to any damage caused over a vicinity or an area and the people
who reside there as a collective, in order to prevent multiplicity of litigations, it can
be subject to only one litigation that entails the concerns of all the effected parties.
2. Trespass
 Malice refers to any wrong act which is done without any just cause or excuse – pertinent
specifically to the Malicious Prosecution
1. Malicious prosecution -
 Motive is irrelevant in most cases.
 A claim on extreme sensitivity of the plaintiff will not be taken into account as it does not apply to
a reasonable man.
 In tort, intention is only the will to do some act and not merely the desire to do it.
 Per se actionable torts – torts that do not require showing actual damage to the claimant. Here it is
presumed that a damage has ensued to the claimant naturally as a result of the tort known as the
principle of presumption of risk:

(a) Trespass
(b) Infringement to proprietary rights
(c) Libel
(d) Breach of duty by public officers

 Any authorized interference, however trivial, with some absolute right conferred by law on a
person is an injury.
 In case of nuisance, defamation and negligence one has to show that physical damage has
occurred alongside the legal damage.
 TYPES OF LEGAL RIGHTS
(a) ABSOLUTE RIGHTS
Only legal harm needs to be shown, trespass to property and person
(b) QUALIFIED RIGHT
Both legal and actual harm needs to be shown
 NEGLIGENCE
(i) Intention and motive do not have a role to play
 Malfeasance – commission of mandatory legal duty in a malicious manner
 Misfeasance – non-commission of mandatory legal duty in the manner in which it is to be
performed
 Nonfeasance – non-performance of legal action one is bound to perform
 Banker refusing a customer’s cheque upon realization of documents and sufficient funding will
lead to commission of tort.
 Damage caused by the authorized acts of the state does not fall under the ambit of tort, as the loss
in such cases does not arise out of a wrong but be exercise of another’s undoubted right. If this
right is enforced without any action of negligence it does not fall under the ambit of legal injury.
 An omission is the failure to do an act as a whole.
  A person may be held liable for omission only when there is an implicit duty to act and an
obligation that may ground his act. A person who is not bound to perform the duty by law in the
first place, cannot be held liable, if anything goes wrong. Moreover, if a person despite not having
the duty to act, still performs an act, but leaves the condition worse will be held liable although
there was no existence of duty to perform to begin with.
 A mistaken belief in consent will not prevent liability from arising.
 Transferred intent or malice refers to the legal doctrine that when intention to harm one individual
inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead, the perpetrator will still be held
responsible.

MODULE 2:

GENERAL DEFENCES TO TORTS

 VOLENTI NON-FIT INJURIA

(2) Assumption of risk leads to mitigation of right to sue for any damage that arises from such
assumptions.
(3) Knowledge of risk does not amount to assumption of risk
(4) Consent must be given freely
(5) The consenter must have the knowledge that a harm may be caused
(6) In the context of sporting events, the games must be played according to the rules and the players
must be competent, for them to claim volenti against any injury happening in the course of the
game.
(7) Medical procedure – a failure on the part of the doctor to explain all the consequences of the act
will invite claims – principle of broad risk is followed.
(8) The bolem test states that the method that is preferred by a majority of doctors to work on a said
issue is used by the doctor, it vitiates claims for damages in case of a mishap.
(9) Any contact that is physical in nature without the consent of the patient will amount to battery. A
doctor can be held liable for battery if he cannot show that he did not operate in the best interest of
the patient.
(10) It is difficult to establish the knowledge element in rescue cases – defendant’s negligence precedes
the claimant’s act of running the risk.
(11) Rescue cases do not involve the maxim of novus actus intervenius as the principle of causation
applies.
(12) VNFI is not applicable in cases of negligence.
(13) Fireman’s rule: as a part of their public duty, there would be no damages provided as
compensation for the injury suffered by them.
(14) LIMITATIONS OF VNFI
(a) Consent is available to minors only in the case of medical procedures
(b) Volenti will be applicable only if the act of the defendant is reasonable
(c) VNFI does not exist if there is a breach of statutory duty

 MISTAKE
2) If the injury to the claimant is due to the mistake of the defendant that a reasonable man may have
committed, it will not amount to tort
3) This defense may be applied to both deceit and malicious prosecution as it negates the existence of
any sort of knowledge or intent.
4) In conversion or trespass to person, mistake cannot be used as a defense.
5) Mistake of fact broadly is only applicable in cases where intent is the cause of the case – false
imprisonment, libel, trespass to goods

 INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
 1. It refers to situations that could not have been avoided even by the agencies of due care of the
claimant and the defendant
2. It does not apply to cases of strict liability

 PLAINTIFF THE WRONG DOER

 NECESSITY
(a) Negates liability in tort
(b) A claim of necessity may be founded on public welfare or self-preservation but must be from
immediate peril.
(c) Urgency, act to prevent greater harm, reasonable.
(d) In cases of medical negligence, the said defense may be applied – conjoined twins surgical
case
 ABATEMENT
 PUBLIC NECESSITY
The person may cause trespass and/or damage to property and injuring of another person if it is
reasonable and will prevent a greater harm or do public good.
 DEFENSE OF ANOTHER PERSON
 ARREST
 POWER OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY
1. Power that a statute confers to do an act then the occurrence of the act would not be regarded as a
tort. Such an authority would come out of greater public good. If however, the legislature could’ve
reasonably avoided the implications of the statute, then the defense can be challenged.
The defense does not apply in a case wherein an officer arrests another person other than whose name
is mentioned in the warrant
 DEFENCE OF ILLEGALITY
1. Illegal conduct by the claimant
2. There must be an overlap of illegal activity and contributory negligence
3. Defendant needs to prove this illegality
4. If the claimant has a criminal law defense, this defense is not applicable
5. The defense is available in the following broad categories
a. The claimant’s illegal conduct caused his own damage (Joyce, Pickett)
b. Claimant seeks to recover damages in respect to criminal law sanctions
For example, when a person seeks damages due to loss of income while he was
in police custody will not sustain.
c. Claimant seeks damages in respect to lost illegal earnings
However, a claimant will not be barred from recovering damages for a loss of
earnings simply because he would have failed to pay tax on them.
d. Claimant seeks damages in respect of interference to chattel illegally procured
 ACT OF STATE
The defense is applicable to a state acting in exercise of its sovereign power against another sovereign
state or citizens
 ACT OF GOD
Must be an extraordinary event not foreseeable, defendant can only use it when the harm suffered by
the plaintiff was a direct and proximate cause of injury and not merely one of the causes. (slater v.
Worthington cash stores)
The test is whether the possibility of the event could have reasonably been foreseen.

MODULE 3 –
LIABILITY UNDER TORTS

- FAULT LIABILITY
 - STRICT LIABILITY
- VICARIOUS LIABILITY
- STATE LIABILITY

 STRICT LIABILITY

Rylands v. Fletcher
Held by Blackburn that, when any person makes an un natural use of land, and if this
said substance escapes, he would prima facie be liable for the same, irrespective of
his own negligence.
1. Dangerous thing:
 Fire, gas, electricity, oil, noxious fumes – the escaped substance should be
potentially harmful and the perils of its escape should be known
2. Escape
If the escape is deliberate, the action that lies is of trespass and not strict
liability.
3. Land
4. Personal injury
5. Non-natural use of land
Anything present or accumulating naturally on a land does not fall under the
ambit of non-natural use of land.
1. Time and circumstance
Read v. Lyons
Production of military explosives may not be considered a non-natural use
of land because it was meant to meet the requirements of the second
world war.
2. Test of quantity
Usually, keeping large quantities of chemicals on one’s land is considered
non-natural use of land
3. Minor domestic use can be excluded
4. The defence of public good would not apply here

Defences to Strict Liability

1. Consent of the plaintiff

When the plaintiff expressly or impliedly agrees to suffering some inconvenience coupled with no
negligence on part of the defendant will give the defendant the opportunity to claim the defense of
Volenti Non-Fit Injuria
2. Common benefit
When the source of danger is brought on a piece of land as per the convenience of both the parties,
plaintiff may not claim damages
3. Act of stranger
Usually the acts of the third party do not make the defendant liable, however the onus lies on the
defendant to prove the same, if however, the acts of the third party could have reasonably be
foreseen, this fact could hold the defendant liable for it. The occupier is liable for the act of
invitees and licensees. If there is any danger that is created due to the act of the previous owner –
the owner of the house could be held liable for it.
The basis for this defense is the fact that the defendant does not have any control on the acts of a
stranger and hence could not be held liable for the same, if however it is in his concern to affect
the act of the third party, this may invite claims of negligence.
 Moreover, the employer is usually liable for the acts of the independent contractors unless it is
entirely collateral.
4. Statutory authority
The statutory authority may either be permissive or mandatory, if is permissive, as long as there is
no negligence on the part of the defendant, there will be no liability and if it is mandatory, then so
long as the statute is duly followed, the liability does not arise.
Here, it is essential to know the difference between permissiveness and mandatories, in the former,
if mains are laid down that burst as per the statute because of keeping the pressure at a certain
level, which was not subscribed by this statute and it only provided for the right to supply water in
its core sense, the defendants may be held liable for it. However, in the latter case, since the clause
withheld the requirement of keeping a continuous supply, if any damage occurs as a result of the
same, without due negligence of the defendant, they may use this defence.
5. Act of god
Where the escape of the substance is only and only because of the escape of substance due to the
active working natural forces and no negligence of the defendant, this claim may be taken. Eg,
Nichols v. Marsland – artificial lakes by damming natural waterbodies, extraordinary torrential
rains happened – embankments gave away, four bridges collapsed as a result of the same –
defence applied duly.
6. Default of plaintiff
7. Remoteness of Damage

In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or
tortious intent). The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law
imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous

the defendant may sometimes be liable only for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his act or omission

The liability that arises without fault is known as strict liability. It came into the knowledge of the juries post the
case of Rylands V. Fletcher

 Elements of strict liability

i) The thing that causes damage must be in the possession of the defendant
ii) Foreseeable damage caused
iii) Non-natural use of the land
iv) Escape of the causative agent

Who can be sued?

The person who brings any hazardous element on his/her land for the non-natural us of such land and for his own
benefit is the one who can be sued, a few points that may be noted here are

 If a good/ commodity is naturally present on one’s piece of land then any escape of the said substance will
not constitute strict liability on part of defendant.
So to say, an example would be that if water flows from x’s underground tunnel and deluges the land of Y
due to say percolation, here X cannot be held liable as there was no accumulation or it was not brought by
X but was naturally existing
 The person who authorizes the tort-feaser to commit the tort is also liable. Thus, it can be said a lesser too
can be liable if he lets land for something that may require accumulation of hazardous material.

 Pertaining to the growth of vegetation

Giles V. Walker
 D ploughs up a piece of land where thistles end up growing, these thistles enter the property of C, where it
gets seeded. No tort as this was a natural process and not one due to the intervention of the defendant but
say for example, if the defendant had purposely done something in order to allow the thistles to grow, he
would have been held liable

Rainham Chemical works ltd V. Belvedere Fish Guano

A and B contracted with the ministry of ammunitions to manufacture explosives on their land under the company c
ltd. Held, though they were licensees would still be held liable for damages that was caused due to the manufacture
and the ministry will be liable for the damages caused

Who may sue?

Anyone may sue regardless for personal or non-personal damage.

Weller & co. V. Foot and mouth disease research institute:

The auctioneer cannot claim damages when there is a spread of disease that renders the cow he was appointed to
auction off unsaleable. If there is a direct loss, compensation may be sought.

Hale V. Jennings Bro

Tenant of stall suffered personal injuries when the chair o plane of the defendant escaped. She was granted
compensation for the same.

NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND

 The good in general may not be inherently dangerous however if it has the potential to become harmful at
escape, it may come under strict liability, an example for the same is water and dirt
 It must be a non-natural use of land not one that is meant for public benefit
 The question about non-natural use of land is whether the defendant has done something out of the ordinary
in the place and at the time when he does it.
 Storing anything in excessive amounts will fall under the ambit of non-natural use.
 Read V. J lyons and co.
The good must have the capacity to move independently and potential cause of harm, in this case the author
has stated the example of glass, this is not inherently and independently dangerous. Things that may be
covered under the ambit of free movement are water, sewage, fumes, gas, explosives, slag heaps,
 A G V. Corke
A man allowed caravans to use his land, and so therefore any harm done by these caravan holders will
directly affect the defendant.
 Gore v. Stannard:

Fire in a tire manufacturing unit will not be considered under the rule of strict liability as the tires that were
stored there were not injurious or inflammable easily so to say that there was no unnatural use of land with
storage of hazardous goods.

 Foreseeability of harm
Cambridge water cause:
In this case, solvents that were used in the tannery used to spill on factory floors from where they flowed
into C’s groundwater source, this water was used supply water to the inhabitants of Cambridge, no one
thought this would happen, as it usually just got evaporated. Held, the defendant is not liable. Thereby we
may conclude that the onus lies on a person only when we can decide what kind of harm was caused must
be foreseeable.

Vicarious Liability

1. Servant is engaged in a contract of services as against a contractor who is engaged in

a contract for services.
2. Four indicators of contract of services
A. Power of selection
B. Payment of wages or other remunerations
C. Right to control the method of working
D. Right to dismissal or suspension
3. If the work that is performed by the person is integral to the business, it may be
construed as a contract of services as against something that is done in passing as an
accessory to the work which may fall under the ambit of contract for services.
4. In the case of the hospital authorities, the distinctions is nullified and all persons can
be held liable as per the Cassidy case
TRESPASS

1. Trespass is a direct infliction of harm, anything indirect will fall under the ambit of negligence
2. Trespass involves active application of intention
3. It is actionable per se.

Trespass to Person

1. Intention is a pre-requisite

False imprisonment

1. A person may be detained wrongfully even without his knowledge as was held in Meering v. Grahame
White Aviation Co.
2. This can be pleaded in case the person suffers from lunacy and the like
3. The restraint must be complete – bird v. jones
4. If a person has reasonable means to escape, though he may not be aware of it, it still amounts to false
imprisonment
5. Robinson v. Balmain Ferry – a person cannot be held liable under the tort of false imprisonment if he does
not allow the claimant to leave the land unless he performs his part of consideration.

Trespass to Land

1. Entry is essential – it must be voluntary.

2. If a person enters a land thinking that it is his own while that of the claimant in actuality will fall under the
ambit of trespass.
3. If a person is thrown onto the land of someone, that does not fall under the ambit of trespass.
4. If a person, who rightfully enters the land, whoever overstays his welcome can be held liable for trespass.
5. The trespass to land may not necessarily be tangible – it can be intangible in the sense of fumes or gases.
6. It involves play of intention.
7. Any interference with the land of another is deemed a constructive entry and amounts to trespass, the
matter may or may not be tangible – gas and fumes for example
8. Consequential interference falls under the ambit of nuisance of private nature while direct interference falls
under the ambit of trespass to land.
9. Every continuence of a trespass is a fresh trespass.
10. Trespass by animals :
1. Straying animals on a highway is no biggie 
2. Animals like cats and dogs that have a natural tendency to stray, will not fall under the ambit of
trespass.
3. If the animal is usually of docile nature, strays into the highway, will not fall under the ambit of
trespass.
4. If this animal, however, is brought onto the highway, without due care, does any harm to the claimant,
the claimant can sue for damages.
5. Damage by diseased animal – liable for trespass
11. DISTRESS DAMAGE FEASANT
1. The right to impound any material used by the defendant to trespass and claim for damages
2. Must be done immediately when transgression happens
3.