Legal Reference Library

Orissa High Court has recently held that a writ application for payment of compensation for the death of a person in electrocution is maintainable when the undisputed facts clearly reveal the same. Petitioners, the unfortunate parents of Mr. Madhusudan Das, who died in electrocution, approached the High Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying, inter alia, for a direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of their only son. The Petitioners stated in the Petition that, on 12.7.1997 evening while their son, Madhusudan Das was driving the cattle, who were damaging the standing paddy crops, from the field by holding a lathi, the said lathi touched the electric live line of the pump house, as a result of which, he got the electric shock, fell down and became senseless. Thereafter he was shifted to headquarter Hospital, Jajpur for treatment. On the way he expired. Justice AK Rath has co...

In a landmark verdict, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana last week ruled that the family of a terminally ill patient, who stops treatment against medical advice, cannot be denied insurance claim on that ground. Upholding the payment of Rs. 35.46 lakh in damages, Justice K. Kannan observed, “There have been instances where due to religious beliefs (for instance, Jehovah’s witnesses’ denial of blood transfusion), patients have declined to take treatment and courts have confronted these problems as well and come to decisions of hands off approach. That is precisely what has been also recorded in the discharge summary that the patient was getting discharged at his own risk and has assured that he will have no right of recourse against the doctor from the hospital. The undertaking will thus go far and no further. It will not exculpate a tort feasor or a person who is bound to indemnify to make possible a plea that the patient ought to have taken treatment. A right not to get treated is j...

Cited: 1) Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 422 2) Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (Twenty-fourth Edition 2002, edited by Justice G.P. Singh) 3) Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (Tenth Edition, 2001) 4) R. v. Lawrence, [1981] 1 All ER 974 (HL) 5) Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1937] A.C. 576 6) Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 7) Reg v. Idu Beg (1881) 3 All. 776 8) Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra 1968 Mh.L.J. 423 9) Michael Hyde and Associates v. J.D. Williams & Co. Ltd., [2001] P.N.L.R. 233, CA, Sedley L.J. 10) Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, 586' 11) Eckersley v. Binnie, [1988] 18 Con. L.R. 1, 79  12) Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edition, Vol.30, Para 35) 13) Hucks v. Cole, [1968] 118 New U 469 14) Maynard v. West Midlands Regional Health Authority, [1985] 1 All ER 635 (HL) 15) Hunter v. Hanley 1955 SLT 213 at 217...

Supreme Court of United Kingdom: The appeal before the Court relates to accessory liability (joint liability) in tort. The Court discussed in detail the test of liability and stated that the defendant will be jointly liable for the tortious acts of the principal if defendant (i) assists or furthers in the commission of the tort, (ii) acts in pursuance of a common design and (iii) such assistance must be substantial rather than minimal. The Court allowed the appeal with 3:2 majority and by a leading judgment Lord Toulson held that the conduct element of accessory liability was not established in the instant case. As per the facts, respondent operates a fish farm in Malta and was transporting tuna in fish cages when its vessel was attacked by a ship, named the “Steve Irwin”. One of the fish cages was rammed and divers from the “Steve Irwin” forced it open and released the fish. This incident was carried out by the Sea Shepherd Conversation Society (“SSCS”) as part of a campaign, calle...