Scribd
Upload
324 views16 pages

Legal Maxims

The document summarizes several important legal maxims: 1) Ubi jus ibi remedium - Where there is a right, there is a remedy. Damnum sine injuria - Damage without violation of a legal right. Volenti non fit injuria - Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury. 2) Ryland v Fletcher establishes the essentials for classifying an event as an "Act of God" or vis major. Salus populi suprema lex refers to the welfare of the people being the supreme law. 3) Qui facit per alium facit per se means he who acts through another does the act himself. Res ipsa loquitur refers to "

Uploaded by

SEHAJ SOFAT
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
324 views16 pages

Legal Maxims

The document summarizes several important legal maxims: 1) Ubi jus ibi remedium - Where there is a right, there is a remedy. Damnum sine injuria - Damage without violation of a legal right. Volenti non fit injuria - Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a legal injury. 2) Ryland v Fletcher establishes the essentials for classifying an event as an "Act of God" or vis major. Salus populi suprema lex refers to the welfare of the people being the supreme law. 3) Qui facit per alium facit per se means he who acts through another does the act himself. Res ipsa loquitur refers to "

Uploaded by

SEHAJ SOFAT
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 16

Legal Maxims

Ubi jus ibi remedium


where there is a right there is a remedy
injuria sine damnum
Violation of legal rights without any damage.
Ashby Vs White, (1703) 2 LD Raym 939
Municipal Board Agra Vs Asharfilal, (1921) 1
ILR 44 Alld 20
Bhim Singh vs State of J & K, AIR 1986 SC 494
damnum sine injuria

Damage without any violation of legal right


 Gloucester Grammer School Case, (1410)YB Hill II
Hen
 Mayor of Bradford Corporation Vs Pickles (1895)
AC 587
 Mogul Steamship Co. v McGregor, Gow & Co.
(1889) 28 ABD 598
 Ushaben Vs Bhagyalaxmi Chitra Mandir, AIR 1978
Guj. 13
‘Volenti nonfit injuria’
Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute a
legal injury
Chapman vs Lord Ellesmere, (1932) 2KB 431
Consent: Express and Implied
Hall vs Brookland, Auto Racing Club, (1933) 1KB
205
Padmavati vs dugganaika, (1975)1 Kam. L.J. 93
Essentials
1. Consent must be freely given
2. Act must not be unlawful or contrary to public
policy
3. Knowledge does not necessarily imply consent
Smith vs Baker & sons, (1891) AC 325
South Indian Industrials vs Alamelu Ammal (1923)
17 LW 495
4. Act must be the same to which consent was
given
Lakshmi rajan vs. Malar hospital, (1998) CPJ 586
Limitation
1. Breach of statutory duty
2. Rescue cases:
novus actus interveniens ( A new actor who breaks
the chain of cause and effect of the negligent act)
Haynes vs Harwood (1935) 1 KB 146
3. Negligence by defended negates the consent of
plaintiff:
Slater vs Clary Cross Co. Ltd. (1956) 2 All ER 625
(railway tunnel)
‘Vis Major’
Act of God
• “injury caused by extraordinary natural forces
without human intervention in circumstance
which could not have been foreseen and which
could not have been guarded against ”
• Eg. - falling of a tree, flash of lightening, flood,
storm, earthquake etc,.
Ryland vs Fletcher
Essentials
(1) event should be a result of natural forces
(2) Should be of extraordinary in nature
(3) Could not be anticipated or guarded against
(4) Not connected with agency of man

Act of God is question of fact


• Nicholas Vs. Marshland, (1876) 2 Ex. D. 1
• Greenock corporation Vs Caledanian Rly,
[1917] AC 556
Indian cases
• Kalloo Lal Vs Hemchandra, AIR 1958 MP 48
• Saraswati Parabhai Vs Grid Corporation of
Orissa and Others, AIR 2000 Ori 13
• Shri Ram Education Trust vs Mitaben Anilbha
Patel, AIR 2011 (NOC) 221 Guj.
‘Salus Populi Suprema Lex’
The welfare of the people is the Supreme Law.
Scott v Shepherd. (1773) 2 W & B L 892 (squib case)
• The common link between necessity and private
defense is “defendants conduct has to be reasonable in
the circumstances”.
• Difference
Necessity – harm on an innocent person
Private defence – harm on plaintiff, who actually is a
wrongdoer.
• Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code
Dhania Daji , (1868) 5 BHC (Cr.P.C) 59 (toddy case)
‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’
Ignorance of the law, not a excuses

Mistake of Law

Contract IPC
‘sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas’
Use your own property as not to injure another’s
elements of private nuisance are:
1. unreasonable or unlawful interference;
2. such interference is with the use or enjoyment of land,
or some right over, or in connection with the land; and
3. damage.
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett, (1936) 2 KB 468,

DEFENCES TO NUISANCE
Prescription
Statutory Authority
‘qui facit per alium facit per se’

• He who acts through another does the act


himself
• Respondent Superior: master is capable of
meeting the liability
• Liability by: Ratification, Relation, Liability by
abetment
• Ratification: express, full knowledge, lawful
acts, done on behalf of a particular person.
Liabilty
• The Economic Reality Test/ The Fourfold Test
Montreal vs Montreal locomotive works ltd,
(1964) 1 DLR 161
Lord wright :
1. Control
2. Ownership of tools
3. Chance of profit
4. Risk of loss
‘res ipsa loquitur’
Things speak for itself

shifts the burden of proof on the defendant

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy