In Yatayat Nigam Udaipur v. Union of India, there was public highway going across the railway track and on the border of the road near the railway crossing there was a hedge and trees. The level crossing at the relevant time was an open and unmanned level crossing with no gate, no chain barrier, no watchman and there was absolutely nothing to caution the users of the road. When a bus was crossing and its major length and already cleared out, a goods train passed and its engine struck against the hind part of the bus with great force. Bus was damaged.
It was held that the Railway administration did not take adequate steps to warn the public of approaching trains. This amounted to negligence on the part of Railway administration.
Also Read Trespass ab initio
In Sorabji v. Jamshedji, the defendant was driving a party, including the plaintiff, in his motor car from Deolali to Igatpuri. The road passed a level crossing. A train was timed to pass the crossing about the time. The defendant, who was driving his car at an excessive speed, got on the level crossing but failed to take the sharp right handed turn after the crossing. The car left the road just beyond the crossing, jumped down the embankment which was ten feet high and rushed into the paddy field below. The occupants of the car with the exception of the defendant, were thrown out with much violence and the plaintiff received such grave injuries which rendered him a cripple for the rest of his life. The plaintiff sued to recover damages caused to him by the defendant’s negligence. It was held that the defendant was grossly and culpably negligent, and that he was liable in damages.
In Jaunpur Municipality v. Brahmkishore, where plaintiff fell down in a trench caused by the Municipality. There was no light or barrier for safety. The defendant was badly injured. The defence of contributory negligence was not allowed and the compensation was granted.
Also Read Maintenance and Champerty
In Poonam Verma v. Ashwani Patel, Supreme Court held the defendant responsible for the death of the plaintiff husband. Here the defendant was a homeopath doctor he prescribed an alopathy medicine which caused the death of the plaintiff. The Court held the act as a gross
In a case the Kerala High Court in T.T. Thomas v. Elisa, laid down that failure to perform emergency operation and death of patient on account of such failure amounts to negligence on the part of surgeon. When surgeon advises a plea that patient did not give his consent for the surgery or the course of treatment advised by him the burden is on him to prove that the non-performance of the surgery or the non administration of the treatment was on account of refusal of the patient to give consent thereto. This especially so in a case when the patient is not alive to give evidence. Consent is implicit in the case of patient who submits to doctor and the absence of consent must be made out by the person alleging it. A surgeon who failed to perform emergency operation must prove with satisfactory evidence that the patient refused to undergo the operation not only at the initial stage but even after the patient was informed about the dangerous consequences of not undergoing operation.
In C. Chinna Thambi, v. Tamil Nadu, where two children died in accident caused due to fall of water tank of the school building. The High Court held the school authorities responsible for the accident and allowed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000.
In State of Haryana v. Santara Devi, the Supreme Court held the State Govt. Responsible for negligence. In the case the plaintiff got a child even after the operation of tubectomy.