In Dickson v. Reuter’s Telegraph Co., a sent a telegram to B for the shipment of certain goods. The telegraph company by mistake delivered the telegram to C. C, acting on the telegram sent the goods to A. A refused to accept the goods stating that he had ordered to goods not from C but from B. C sued the telegraph company for damages for the loss suffered by him. If was held that C had no cause of action against the company for the company did not owe any duty of care to C, and no, legal right of C could therefore, be said to have been infringed.
In Temulji v. Bombay Tamway Co, the plaintiff attempted to board the defendant’s tramcar which was in motion. He could not do so, fell and sustained injury. In an action, it was held that the defendants were not liable, plaintiff’s and itself being highly negligent.
Also Read Malicious Prosecution
Also Read Privilege: Most important defence to an action for defamation
Also Read Discharge of Torts in India
Also Read Damages for Nervous or mental shock
In Bolton v. Stone, a person, being on a side road of residential houses, was injured by a ball hit by a player on a cricket ground abutting on that highway. The ground was enclosed on that side by a seven-feet high fence, the top of which owing to a slope stood seventeen feet above the level of the pitch. The wicket from which the ball was hit was about seventy-eight yards from this fence and one hundred yards from the place where the injury occurred. There was evidence that while over a period
of years balls had never been struck over the fence on rare occasions, the hit now in question was altogether exceptional. It was held that the members of the club were not liable in damages to the injured person, whether on the ground of negligence or nuisance. Although the possibility of the ball being hit on the highway might reasonably have been foreseen, this was not sufficient to establish negligence, since the risk of injury to anyone in such a place was so remote that a reasonable person could not have anticipated it.