Facts
- The defendant is the director of a motion picture show company. The part of the house on the street is one−storey. On the roof of this house, overlooking the street, stands a sky sign, which is more or less a permanent structure, consisting of a steel frame fixed in an upright position by means of masonry and iron fittings. Galvanized sheeting of iron is on this plate. The galvanized sheeting covers the entire surface of the container.
- The defendant received a license from the municipality of Calcutta to erect this sky sign. Banners were projected from the symbol of the moon.
- There was no contrivance in this sky sign that would keep these banners firmly and safely in place − no loops, holes, grooves, flanges or screws.
- On 5 July 1943, a banner in the wooden frame dropped from its spot on the complainant. He was hit by a wooden frame on his head, as he suffered a cut on it, which the medical reports identified as significant and blowing profusely.
Issues before the Court
- If the defendant, the occupant bordering the public thoroughfare, owed some responsibility to the complainant who was a passerby?
- Will the term res ipsa loquitur apply to the case?
If the climate disturbances of the 5th of July 1943 were a serious storm at all?
Principles
- Act of God
- Essentials of negligence − Winfield in textbook law of the tort
- A breach of legal duty – which result in damage undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.
- A legal duty
- Breach of duty
- Consequential damage
- A breach of legal duty – which result in damage undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.
- Ratio of the Case
- “Professor Winfield, following Pollock, described the act of God as” the action of natural forces so unforeseen that no human foresight or ability could reasonably be expected to predict it.”
- Greenock Company v. Caledonian Railway [(1917) A.C. 556] Lord Parker said: (1868) 330 [Rylands v. Fletcher] saved the question that the act of God may not have offered a shield, and this question was resolved in the affirmative in (1876) 10 Ex. 255 [Nichols v. Marsland] in which the act of God was defined by the decision of the jury, but I have some questions as to whether that decision was correct
- In Montreal City v. Watt and Scott Ltd. [(1922) 2 A.C. 555] It was decided that it was the responsibility of the municipality to build sewers to allow them to cope with the amount of water that could be required from time to time over the years.
Decision of Court
- “The Chief Observer of the Weather Office of the Metereological Department testified that there was not much rain on the evening of 5 July and that the wind speed was moderate.
- This weather was not uncommon in the monsoon season. This proof puts an end to the plea of God’s intervention.
- In not taking precautions against winds that are not uncommon during the monsoon months, the defendants were prima facie negligent, and the fact that the banners dropped in the storm, which was not above 27 miles per hour in velocity, goes a long way to disprove all the elaborate facts of the defendant
- I can not accept this testimony, because if it were valid, the banner would not have fallen.”
