Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: consequential damage in Ulahannan Rajan vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 4 September, 1991Matching Fragments
4. Heard counsel on both sides.
5. The following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether Pennamma and the child fell down on account of negligence on the part of Railway servants? (2) Whether defendant is liable to pay compensation or damages?, and (3) What is the quantum?
Points 1 and 2.
6. The main aspect to be considered is whether there was negligence on the part of Railway servants. Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to take care as a result of which damage is caused to another. In order to establish negligence the ingredients to be proved are (1) a legal duty on the part of A towards B to exercise care in such conduct of A as falls within the scope of duty; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) consequential damage to be. What is meant by "duty to take care" has been spoken to by Lord Macmillan in Bourhill v. Young (1943) AC 92 thus: