TORTS FLOWCHARTS

1. Consent, Volenti Non Fit Injuria
1. Letang v Ottawa Electric
The court held that if the defendant wants to succeed under this maxim, he must prove that the plaintiff had
given his consent freely, voluntarily with full knowledge of the nature of the risk.
2. Kanagasapathy v Narsingam
Plaintiff who was employed by Defendant as a toddy tapper, fell from coconut tree and sustained injuries.
Before this incident he had complained several time to defendant his employer about trees slipery but no
action was taken. P sued D for damage. D invoke Volenti but failed. The Court held that the D owed duty of
care to P as his employer and breach his duty. The fact that P continue to work inspite he knew the risk does
not mean P consented it.
3. Hegarty v Shine
P consented to have sexual intercourse with D after D represented that he is free for syiphilis which is not
true. P claimed that consent was obtained by fraud. Court will look at the plaintiff’s awareness of the nature
of the act (sexual intercourse ) and not the quality of the act (syiphilis).However P may sue in tort of deceit.
4. Chatterton v Gerson
Once the patient is informed in broad terms of the nature of the prosedure which is intended, and gives her
consent, that consent is real. If no explanation was given then defence of volenti will fail. Therefore , a
patient need only be informed in broad terms of the nature of the treatment.
5. Hills v Potter
In emergency situation, where a person of full age and capasity cannot give express consent, due to
unconscious, the act of a surgeon is justified because consent is implied to held the life. If the surgeon is sued,
he can invoke defence of necessity.
6. Nettleship v Weston
A women requested P not a professional driving instructor to teach her driving. Before, he start teaching, he
inquire about the insurance which was informed fully insured. P agree to teach. One day while teaching, the
women involve in accident. P injured and sued for damages. It was held that the fact that P inquire about the
insurance showed that he does not consent to take a risk.
7. Owens v Brimmel
If the passenger knew that the driver consumed alcohol in such a quantity which will dangerous to drive, the
passenger is liable for contributory negligence.
8. Teh Hwa Seong v Chop Lim Chin Moh & Anor
P was a passenger in a lorry driven by D. The lorry involved iin an accident and P sustained injury. In this
case ,the lorry owner (not his driver) claimed that there was a notice in the lorry states ` Riding at your own
risk’ and so claimed defence of volenti. In this case the defendants failed to invoke that defence of volenti
because the court doubt such notice was brought to the attention of P.
The court further held that in order to succed, the defedant must give sufficient notice to Plaintiff about the
risk.

2. 9. Wooldridge v Sumner
In a horse show, a spectator( photgrapher) was inured by a ggalloping horse, where the rider was too fast in
the contest. It was held that horse rider is not negligence because the defendant was doing his best to win the
contest and so he only owes a duty of care and not duty of skill.
10. Ashton v Turner
Plaintiff sustained serious injury when a car driven by defendant in a gateway from burglary involved in
accident. The judge dismissed the claim because a P and D are both involve in the crime .The law does not
recognise the existence of such duty of care in this situation based on public policy.
Rescue Cases
11. Wagner v International Rly.
It was held that tha wrong to the victim is also a wrong to the rescuer . It is natural and probable that danger
invites rescue.
12. Baker v T.E. Hopkins & Son Ltd.
Defendant company was cleaning a contaminated well. The method used by D company caused the
emtittence of carbon monoxide. D warned his two workers about t
he danger, yet there went into the well and overcome by the fume. Dr. Baker was called to treat them. Dr.
Baker went into the well with a rope with an intention to rescue the two workers, unfortunately the rope stuck
and and the three of them died.
It was held that the act of rescue by Dr. Baker was a natural and probable result of D’s fault.Therefore it
cannot be said that there was a novus actus interveniens.
13. Chadwick v British Railways Board
Plaintiff ‘s husband who live near a railway line, had gone to rescue a major railway rescue and as result of it
he became neurotic. The court held the defendant company liable because they owe a duty to Plaintiffs
husband.
14. Haynes v Harwood
D left a horse drawn unattended in a busy street. A boyy threw a stone and the horse bolted. Plaintif try to
bring the horse to a halt but sustained injury. Defedant held liable because this type of thing likely to happen
and the maxim volenti non fit injuria don’t apply.
14. Cutler v United Daiiries (London) Ltd.
Plaintiff saw a horse and cart without driver quickly pass by his house. He was worried about his children but
they are safe in the back garden. When he saw the driver trying to pacify the horse, he went to help and
sustained injuri. The court held that the defedant is entitle for defence of Volenti because the injury sustained
by the plaintiff was not a result of defendant`s negligence.
Note: His children are already safe yet he come and help, this is not rescue case.
15. Brandon v Osborne, Garrett & Co. Ltd.
Some glass fell from skylight and struck X. His wife tried to pull him away annd she suffered injury to her
leg. It was held that she does not contribute to her injury because any reasonable man would have done it.

3. Act of God
15. Reylands v Fletcher
Defendant employed independent contractors to build a reservoir on their land. There was a shaftt beneath
the reservoir which was not blocked by the contractors . When the reservoir was filled with water it escape to
the plaintiff mine and flooded the mines. The negligence was nnot due to the defendant but the contractors.
However, the Court held defendant was liable. Blackburn J held that:
` A person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and kepts anything likely to do mischief
it it escapes, must keep it in at his peril , and, if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage
which is the natural consequence of its escape.’
16. Nichols v Marsland
The defendant was held not liable when an exceptionally violent rainfall caused his artificial ornamental
lakes to flood his neigbour`s land.
17. Greenock Corp. v Caledonian Ry.
The defendant was held liable when an extraordinary rainfall causes water from a pond constructed by
defendant by diverting natural course of a stream , poured to the street and causes damages to plaintiff`s
property. The court held that it is not enough to prove that the ocurrence was one which could not reasonably
anticipated but must prove that no human foresight could have recognised the possiblity.
Private Defence
18. Holmes v Bagge
Defendant, the cricket team captain, ordered plaintiff to be forcibly removed from the cricket field. Plaintiff
sued Defendant for assault . It was held that, defedant must proof that he possess the field before he can
forcibly remove plaintiff. In this case the field does not belongs to the defendant.
19. Scott v Shepherd
A threw a small firework into a crowded market. It fell on Y’s stall. Z bystander took it and threw away in
order to save the stall and himself, but it fell on P’s stall. P threw the firework further and fell on B` faced and
seriously injured B. Held A was liable to B for assault and trespass.
Necessity
20. Kirk v Gregory
Defendant removed his dead brother in law`s jewellery in order to safe it. It was later stolen. Defedant was
held liable because there was no proof that defendant`s interference was necessary.
21. Cope v Sharpe
Fire broked out at A`s land. In order to save C`s pheasants, C`s servant se a fire to a strip of land on A`s
Property in order to prevent the spread of the fire. However, shortly after, A`s servant manage to put off the
fire and it turned that the action by C`s servant was not necessary. Held that there was a real and imminent
danger to C`s pheasants at the time of C`s servants action and it was reasonable.

4. Inevitable Accident
22. Wong Eng v Chock Mun Chongg & Ors
This is an accident case, where Plaintiff invoke res ipsa loguitor.. Defendant invoke defence of inevitable
accident as a result of a latent defact of break which is unnoticiable. The vehicle was reguarly checked. The
court held that the accident was due to the latent defect of the break.
23. Fardon v Harcourt Revington
The burden of proof lies of the Plaintiff that D is negligence.But if P had proved that D
is negligence t
Then D cannot invoke defence of inevitable accident.
24. Tan Giok Hue v Lim Swee Peng
Defedant adduce evidence that the accident was due to tyre burst. The court found
that the tyre burst was after the accident and not before. Therefore defedant is liable.
25. Zainun v Chong Ah Seng
The tyre burst before the accident, court held not liable.
26. Lim Kim Chai v Foo See Fatt
Defedant claimed that he had a momentum black out at the time of the accident. Held
Actually he was asleep and therefore liable.
Note: If sudden heart attack , defedant can plea defence of Inevitable accident.
Duty of Care
27. Donoghue v Stevenson
Appellant sought to recover damages from the respondent ,who was a manufacturer of aerated waters,for unjuries she
suffered as a result of consuming part of the contents of a botle of gingerbeer which had been manufactured by the
respondent and which contained decomposed remains of a snail. The gingerbeer was purchased for appellant byy a
friend.The bottle was made of a dark opague glass and the appellant could not inspect them before she drink.As a
result of the discovery, she was shock and had severe gastro-enteritis.
The House of Lords held that the manufacturer is under a legal duty to the ultimate purchaser or consumer to take
reasonable care that the article is free from defect likely to cause injury to health. In this case Lord Atkin develop
neigbour principle.The principle is
i. One must take reasonable care to avoid acts or ommission which can reasonably foresee would likely to cause
injure to the neigbour.
ii. The neigbour is who are so closely and directly affected by the act.
28. Anns v Merton London Borough
The respondents were the lessees of seven flats from the builder who was the owner of the building. The local
authority passed building plans for the block which were deposited under the by laws.The building were completed.
Few years later, there cracks in the building. The respondents sued the the builder and the local council. They claim

5. that the local council was negligence because they passed the building without inspecting the required foundation of
the building according to the plan. By so they does not follow the by law.
It was held that the local council was liable to the respondents for breach of duty to ensure that the by laws were
complied. In this case two stage test were established.
i. Whether there is sufficient relationship and foreseeablity
ii. To consider whether there is any consideration which may negative, reduce,limit the scope of liablity.
29. Murphy v Bentwood
The facts are similar to Anns case.Here the council were sued for neglegence approving plans of building without
required foundation.This resulted the defect of the building. Plaintiff sold the house for a lower price due to the defect.
He claim damage for negligence. He succeeded at trial court, but on appeal HOLs dismiised the claim and decided that
Anns was wrongly decided.It states that in Anns the court had taken the role of the legislature .
30. Yuen Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong
The plaintiff brought an action against the AG of Hong Kong, because P deposited money in a company which
subsequently went into liquidation. P blame the Commissiioner of Deposit taking Companies fail to revoked the
registration of the said company before p deposit their money.
It was held that close and direct relationshipmust be established first. Then all circumstances must taken into
consideration . In this case there is no close and direct relatinship between the plaintiff and the commissioner because
under the law he had no power to control the management of the deposited taking companies.
Plaintiff failed in their claim.
31. Davis v Radcliffe
It was held that,for liability of negligennce, one must proof
i. Poximity
ii. Foreseeablity
iii. Just and reasonable
32. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. v Home Office
Some boys under the supervision of the prison officer were uncamped at a island. Some of them in order to escaped
damage the yacht belongs to the plaintiff. It was held that there close and direct relationship between the owners of the
yacht and the prison officer which is suffient enough for the prison officer to take reasonable care to prevent the boys
from damaging the yacht. In this case the neigbour principle extended as below:
i. proximity
ii. foreseability
iii. just, fair and reasanble
33. Walker v Northumberland County Council
Plaintiff was employed by defendant local authority as a social services officer. In 1986 the plaintiff suffered a
nervous breakdown because of stress and pressure of work and was off for 3 months. When he returned back to work
and inform his superior about his condition. He was not given proper assistance and the workload increases. As a
result of it he suffered second mental breakdown and subsequently was dismissed on the ground of permanent ill
health. Plaintiff sue the authority for breach of duty and claims damages.
Held that for the second mental breakdown, the employer was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff might suffer a
nervous breakdown because of stress and pressure and so under a duty of care to provide safe system of work. The
defendant had acted unreasonably and breach of its duty of care and so liable for negligence.
34. Kerajaan Malaysia v Cheah Foong Chiew and ors

6. The Plaintiff calaimed damages as result of a negligence of the defedants in supervising buildings constructed for the
plaintiff by Sri Kinabalu Sdnn. Bhd. All the three defedants were the employee or agent of consultant firm Sigoh Din
Sdn. Bhd. Plaintiff has to spend more money to repair the building so that it is safe for occupation.The third defedant
an engineer in Sigoh Din Sdn. Bhd. Applied to struct of the action by plaintiff because :
i. He was a graduate engineer employed by Sigoh Din Sdn.Bhd. and so not responsible for the plaintiff because
he was under the supervision of Sigoh Din Sd. Bhd.
ii. The claim made by the plaintiff was a pure economic loss and so could not be claimed under torts.
Held: The third defendant was only responsible to Sigoh Din Sdn. Bhd. And not to the plaintiff.
The loss suffered by plaintiff is pure economic loss and so is not liable under torts.
35. Marc Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Marine
The owner of a bull carrier developed a crack in their vessel while carrying goods from South America to Italy. The
vessel anchored at Puerto Rico and was surveyed bya a surveyor acting for the vessel`s clasification society. The
surveyor suggested permanent repair but the owner persuaded for temporary repair which was agreed by the surveyor.
Later the vessel sank together with the goods.The cargo owners sued the shipowner, the chaterer and the calsification
society. Held on appeal that
It is a settled law that the elements of foreseeability and proximity as well as considerations of fairness, justice and
reasonableness applied to all cases of negligence.
In this case assuming there is a proximity but is in unfair, unjust and unreasonable to impose a duty of care to the
clasification society because they are non profit making entities created for safety of life and ships at sea.
36. Haley v London Electricity Board
The defedant with statutory authority dick a trecnh in the street. They took precaution for the protection of passer by
for normal sighted person. But no such precaution for blind. Plaintiff a blind mann suffered injury and sue for
inedequate precaution. The fact that the place is frequently used by blind is sufficient enough for the defedabt to
provide precaution for the blind.
Defendant liable.
37. Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad
A push B who was attempting to boarda moving train. As a result of it B drop a box contain fireworks and it exploded
cause injury plaintiff. Held A is negligence to B but not to Plaintiff because it not reasonably foreseeable that
explosive package will explode and cause injury.
38. Bourhill v Young
A pregnnant woman sustained nervous shock after witnising the aftermath of the accident. Her claimed against the
defendant failed because she was outside the area of foreseeable danger.
39. Rondel v Worsley
Public policy demands that a barrister should be immune from liability for negligence in the conduct of proceeding in
the couurt.
.
40 Hill v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Public policy also demand police are not liable for negligence in the course of their investigation.

7. The Plaintiff calaimed damages as result of a negligence of the defedants in supervising buildings constructed for the
plaintiff by Sri Kinabalu Sdnn. Bhd. All the three defedants were the employee or agent of consultant firm Sigoh Din
Sdn. Bhd. Plaintiff has to spend more money to repair the building so that it is safe for occupation.The third defedant
an engineer in Sigoh Din Sdn. Bhd. Applied to struct of the action by plaintiff because :
i. He was a graduate engineer employed by Sigoh Din Sdn.Bhd. and so not responsible for the plaintiff because
he was under the supervision of Sigoh Din Sd. Bhd.
ii. The claim made by the plaintiff was a pure economic loss and so could not be claimed under torts.
Held: The third defendant was only responsible to Sigoh Din Sdn. Bhd. And not to the plaintiff.
The loss suffered by plaintiff is pure economic loss and so is not liable under torts.
35. Marc Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Marine
The owner of a bull carrier developed a crack in their vessel while carrying goods from South America to Italy. The
vessel anchored at Puerto Rico and was surveyed bya a surveyor acting for the vessel`s clasification society. The
surveyor suggested permanent repair but the owner persuaded for temporary repair which was agreed by the surveyor.
Later the vessel sank together with the goods.The cargo owners sued the shipowner, the chaterer and the calsification
society. Held on appeal that
It is a settled law that the elements of foreseeability and proximity as well as considerations of fairness, justice and
reasonableness applied to all cases of negligence.
In this case assuming there is a proximity but is in unfair, unjust and unreasonable to impose a duty of care to the
clasification society because they are non profit making entities created for safety of life and ships at sea.
36. Haley v London Electricity Board
The defedant with statutory authority dick a trecnh in the street. They took precaution for the protection of passer by
for normal sighted person. But no such precaution for blind. Plaintiff a blind mann suffered injury and sue for
inedequate precaution. The fact that the place is frequently used by blind is sufficient enough for the defedabt to
provide precaution for the blind.
Defendant liable.
37. Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad
A push B who was attempting to boarda moving train. As a result of it B drop a box contain fireworks and it exploded
cause injury plaintiff. Held A is negligence to B but not to Plaintiff because it not reasonably foreseeable that
explosive package will explode and cause injury.
38. Bourhill v Young
A pregnnant woman sustained nervous shock after witnising the aftermath of the accident. Her claimed against the
defendant failed because she was outside the area of foreseeable danger.
39. Rondel v Worsley
Public policy demands that a barrister should be immune from liability for negligence in the conduct of proceeding in
the couurt.
.
40 Hill v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Public policy also demand police are not liable for negligence in the course of their investigation.