Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. To it the learned Chief Justice added or acts with reckless carelessness, not oaring what the results of his carelessness may be.

13. This addition was objected to by Avery, J., as inconsistent with the above. definition but approved by Lush, J., in Norris v. Great Central Railway Co. [1915] 114 L.T. 183. It will be noticed from the definition given by Alverstone, C.J., in Forder v. Great Western Railway [1905] 2 K.B. 532, that it is confined more to the interpretation of the word "wilful" than to "misconduct." Divested of the words, used to stress the sense of "wilful" in the above definition, the definition of misconduct will stand thus : Misconduct is distinguished from accident and is not far from negligence, not only gross and culpable negligence, and involves that a person misconducts himself, when it is wrong conduct on his-part in the existing circumstances to do, or to fail or omit to do (as the case may be) a particular thing or to persist in-the act, failure or omission or acts with carelessness. In the Oxford Dictionary "misconduct" is said to mean bad management; mismanagement, malfeasance or culpable neglect of an official in regard to his office. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 4, para. 55, misconduct is as that if a contract purports to relieve a company from liability for any fault or negligence, the company remains, liable in case of misconduct.

14. Then it is added:

Misconduct is not necessarily established by proving even culpable negligence.

15. The learned editor had, probably in mind when be used these words the definition of "wilful misconduct" as it appears that he has relied in support of his statement on Forder v. Great Western Railway [1905] 2 K.B. 532. I am inclined to hold that the word "misconduct" as used in the new risk note B is wide enough to include wrongful commission and omission, intentional or unintentional, of any act which it wrongfully did or which it wrongfully neglected to do, or to put it in another way, did what it should not have done and did not do what it should have done. This seems to be the view taken by Mitter, J., in B.N. Ry. Co. Ltd., v. Moolji Sicka & Co. where the learned Judge observes that in certain cases negligence will be good evidence of misconduct and mismanagement of the railway company. I am not inclined to accept the view that misconduct only refers to acts of gross or culpable negligence and the term does not ordinarily cover acts of mere negligence. In my judgment the word misconduct" denotes any unbusiness-like conduct and includes negligence or want of proper care which a bailee is to take under Section 152, Contract Act. The immunity which the risk note brings to the rail way company is by shifting the burden of proof. In the case of a bailee, if the goods are found damaged in his possession, the onus is upon him to prove how the damage occurred, if he wants to avoid liability. In the case of goods damaged in the possession of the "railway company covered by a risk note, the owner of the goods is to prove that the injury to the goods was caused by the misconduct of the railway company. Under the old -form the onus was always upon the owner to prove it in order to recover damages from the railway company. By the changes in the form of the risk note there has been no change of law; on the other hand it has been emphasized by the words "except upon proof of." The plaintiffs therefore in this case have to prove that the injury to the goods of which they complain was caused on account of the misconduct of the railway company.