MODULE 2

MASTER AND SERVANT

In tort law, the master-servant relationship gives rise to the principle of vicarious liability,
meaning a master (employer) can be held liable for the torts committed by their servant
(employee) during the course of employment. This liability is based on the principle that the
master's actions are deemed to be the servant's actions, and the master is considered to have
authorized the servant's actions i.e. the master is liable for the servant's torts, even if the
master did not directly commit the tort or authorize the specific act. This liability is referred
to as vicarious liability.

1. VICAROUS LIABILITY

INTRODUCTION

Since ancient times, it is the rule that a person should be held liable for his own mistake. In
the words of Plato "a person should be held for his own sins". But, in thirteenth century, in
England, it was for the first time, established that the master would be liable for his servant's
or slave's torts only when there is an express command of the master to the servant's wrong.
But due to the inadequacy in terms of commercial transactions the implied command was
added in the case of Tuberville v Stamp 1697 by Sir John Holt in which the master will be
held liable if the servant commits any wrong due to its course of employment with the master.
Therefore, Justice Holt was considered to be the proponent of the modern law of vicarious
liability.

CONDITIONS

 Tort Committed by the Servant: The tort must be committed by the servant, not an
independent contractor.
 Tort Committed During Employment: The tort must occur while the servant is acting
within the scope of their employment or course of employment.

Eg. A waiter at a restaurant spills a hot drink on a customer, causing burns.

ELEMENTS

1) The parties must have some sort of pre-existing relationship like master and servant, agent
and principle, etc

2) The wrong must be done by someone else.

3) The wrongdoing must occur while the employee is on duty or course of employement.

DOCTRINE OF LIABILITY

The Vicarious liability of the master is based upon the two maxims which are Qui facit per
alium facit per se and respondeat superior.

 Qui facit per alium facit per se : He who does something through another does it himself,
meaning the master is responsible for their servant's actions.
 Respondeat superior : Let the principle be liable.

When a servant commits a wrongful act during their employment, both the servant and the
master may be held liable. This principle, known as respondeat superior, holds the master
accountable for the servant's actions, treating them as if the master had committed the act
personally. Additionally, the Latin maxim qui facit per alium facit per se reinforces this
concept, stating that one who acts through another is considered to have acted themselves.
Thus, the master can be held vicariously liable alongside the servant, making their liability
joint and several.

CASES

 Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and Or. V. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. (1977)

The Supreme Court in its judgement overruled the judgement of the High Court and held
that from the facts of the case it was clear that the accident had occurred due to
the negligence of the manager who was driving the vehicle in the course of his
employment and therefore, the respondent company was liable for his negligent act.

 State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati & Anr. (1962)

In this case the Rajasthan High Court reversed their decision, by holding the state liable,
which the Supreme Court upheld where it established the principle of vicarious liability,
making employers responsible for their employees' actions even without direct
authorization. The court ruled that the state, like any other employer, is vicariously liable
 for its employees’ actions and rejected the notion of sovereign immunity and reinforced
state accountability.

 In Bayley v
Manchester S&L
Railway (1873) LR 8 CP
148, a porter of a
railway
 company while
working mistakenly
believed that the
plaintiff was in the
wrong carriage
 even though he was in
the right one. The
porter thus pulled the
plaintiff as a result of
 which the plaintiff
sustained injuries.
Here, the Court held
the railway company
 vicariously liable for
the act of the porter
because it was done in
the course of his
 employment and this
act would have been
proper if the plaintiff
was indeed in the
wrong
 carriage
 In Bayley v
Manchester S&L
 Railway (1873) LR 8 CP
148, a porter of a
railway
 company while
working mistakenly
believed that the
plaintiff was in the
wrong carriage
 even though he was in
the right one. The
porter thus pulled the
plaintiff as a result of
 which the plaintiff
sustained injuries.
Here, the Court held
the railway company
 vicariously liable for
the act of the porter
because it was done in
the course of his
 employment and this
act would have been
proper if the plaintiff
was indeed in the
wrong
 carriage
 In Bayley v
Manchester S&L
Railway (1873) LR 8 CP
148, a porter of a
railway
 company while
working mistakenly
believed that the
plaintiff was in the
wrong carriage
 even though he was in
the right one. The
porter thus pulled the
plaintiff as a result of
 which the plaintiff
sustained injuries.
Here, the Court held
the railway company
 vicariously liable for
the act of the porter
 because it was done in
the course of his
 employment and this
act would have been
proper if the plaintiff
was indeed in the
wrong
 carriage
 In Bayley v
Manchester S&L
Railway (1873) LR 8 CP
148, a porter of a
railway
 company while
working mistakenly
believed that the
 plaintiff was in the
wrong carriage
 even though he was in
the right one. The
porter thus pulled the
plaintiff as a result of
 which the plaintiff
sustained injuries.
Here, the Court held
the railway company
 vicariously liable for
the act of the porter
because it was done in
the course of his
 employment and this
act would have been
 proper if the plaintiff
was indeed in the
wrong
 carriage
 Bayley v Manchester S & L Railway (1873)
In this case, a porter of a railway company while working mistakenly believed that the
plaintiff was in the wrong carriage even though he was in the right one. The porter thus
pulled the plaintiff because of which the plaintiff sustained injuries. Here, the court held
the railway company vicariously liable for the act of the porter because it was done in the
course of his employment, and this act would have been proper if the plaintiff was indeed
in the wrong carriage.

2. DISTINCTION BETWEEN SERVANT AND INDEPENDENT

CONTRACTOR

SERVANT: A servant, commonly referred to as an employee or a workman, is an individual

who works under the direct control and supervision of an employer. The employer dictates
not only what work is to be done but also how it should be performed.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: An independent contractor, on the other hand, is engaged
under a contract for service. This means that the contractor provides services to the employer
but is not subject to the employer's control and direction in the manner of performing those
services. Independent contractors include consultants, freelancers, and contract labourers.
This relationship is primarily governed by the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

A servant and independent contractor are both employed to do some work of the employer
but there is a difference in the legal relationship which the employer has with them. A servant
is engaged under a contract of services whereas an independent contractor is engaged under a
contract for services.

Feature Servant Independent Contractor

 Contract Type Contract of Service Contract for Services

Control Employer has control over how Employer controls only what
work is done work is done

Autonomy Limited autonomy High degree of autonomy

Vicarious Employer may be liable for Employer generally not liable

Liability servant's actions for contractor's actions

Termination Subject to employment laws and Termination governed by the

termination procedures. contract terms.

Payment Receives regular wages or salary. Paid upon completion of

specific tasks or projects.

To illustrate, if a personal driver negligently causes harm, the master is liable. However, if a
taxi driver, considered an independent contractor, causes harm while providing a service, the
master is not liable, as the driver operates independently.
CASE REFERENCE
In Morgan v. Incorporated Central Council, 1936 the court established that an employer is
generally not liable for the negligent acts of an independent contractor. The case involved a
plaintiff who was injured while falling down an open lift shaft while visiting the defendant's
premises. The lift maintenance had been delegated to an independent contractor, and the court
held that the employer (defendant) was not responsible for the contractor's negligence.

COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT
Course of employment refers to the actions of an employee that occur within the scope of
their employment duties and obligations. Not all actions of an employee are within the course
of employment. For example, if an employee's personal actions on their off-time cause harm,
the employer is unlikely to be held liable. In essence, the "course of employment" determines
whether an employer can be held responsible for the actions of their employees under the
principle of vicarious liability.
Eg: An employee causing an accident while making a delivery on their job, an employee
making a discriminatory statement while interacting with a customer, or an employee using
their employer's equipment negligently.

COMMON EMPLOYMENT
The Doctrine of Common Employment refers to a legal principle that serves as a defence
against the doctrine of vicarious liability of a master/employer in a master-servant or
employer-employee relationship. The Doctrine clearly states that if the employer provides:
i. a safe environment as well as
ii. safe and efficient equipment to perform the duty imposed by such employer on an
employee,

then by law, such an employer is not liable for any harm inflicted upon a worker because
of the actions of a co-worker.

ESSENTIALS
 The perpetrator (a person who carries immoral or illegal acts) and the injured employee
must be co-workers.
 The wrongful action must take place within the scope of employment
 The wrongful act must be committed by one employee to another, without the knowledge
of the employer.
 The wrongful action must be committed while performing an act authorized by the
employer, for the fulfilment of requirements of such employment.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF A STATE

This is followed by the maxim Rex non potest peccare in which the king can do no wrong. It
was applicable in England where in general rule the Crown was not vicariously liable for the
tortious act of the servants but later in 1949 the Crown Proceedings Act was enacted by the
British Parliament and the vicarious liability of the state for the tortious act of the servant was
fixed.
 In India even before the constitution came into force, the state was held to be vicariously
liable for the tortious act of the servant. Later in the case P&O steam navigation company v
secretary of state 1860 it was held that state was vicariously liable for the negligence of its
servants who are engaged in non-sovereign functions of the state and if it is sovereign
function then the state cannot be held liable.
Vicarious liability of the state for the tort committed by its employee is based upon: -
1. Sovereign functions – are those actions of a state for which the state is not answerable in any
court of law. These are the works that can lawfully be exercised only by a sovereign or by the
person to whom such power is delegated. In layman’s language, these are the works or
functions which a private individual or body cannot do and only the government has authority
to do these functions or work. For example, the Defence of the country, Raising and
Maintaining the armed forces, making peace or war, foreign affairs, railways, retaining
territory, and police.
2. Non–sovereign functions – non-sovereign functions are those which can be performed or
carried out by any private individuals without any delegation of powers by the government. If
a person commits a tort while performing a non-sovereign function and that person is a
government employee, then the state can be held liable for such an employee. In simple
language, non-sovereign functions include all the work which can be performed by any
person. For example, functions relating to trade, business, school, hospital, airport, and
welfare activity.
 State of Rajasthan v Vidyawathi
A jeep was owned by and maintained by the state of Rajasthan for the official use of the
collector of the district. The driver of the jeep negligently driven the vehicle while he was
bringing it back from the workshop after repairs and a pedestrian was knocked down and he
died, and his widow sued the driver and the state for damages. A constitutional bench of the
supreme court held that the state was vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act of the
driver.
 BKD Patil vs State of Mysore, 1977
In this case some gold ornaments were stolen from the plaintiff’s house and gives complaint
in the police station and later the police have arrested the thief and retained the gold
ornaments. As per the direction of the court it was kept in the police custody. Subsequently
court directed the police to give the stolen ornaments to the plaintiff but it was found to be
stolen from the police custody. Later the plaintiff sues the state and claim compensation for
the stolen ornaments due to the negligence of the police authorities of the state. The supreme
court has held that the state is vicariously liable for the negligence act of the police
authorities.

JOINT TORTFEASOR
Joint tortfeasors are two or more individuals who collectively or independently cause the
same injury or damage to a plaintiff, making them jointly and severally liable for the
harm. This means each tortfeasor can be held responsible for the entire damage, and the
plaintiff can recover from any one or all of them. When a tort is committed against a person
by two or more persons, they may be either independent tort feasors or joint tortfeasors.
 The independent tortfeasors are the one who has no common intention and act completely
independent but occur to produce same or single damage.
A and B are driver of two cars. The cars were coming from opposite directions but due to
the negligence of both the drivers a pedestrian was harmed due to the collision of the
vehicle. Here the liability is not joint but only several (separate or individual).
 The joint tortfeasors are the one where two or more persons are said to be joint when they
commit the wrongful act which will result in same or single damage with a common
intention and not independently.
A and B jointly trespass into C’s land and damage the garden of C. Here both A and B are
jointly liable for the wrongful act.
Persons having certain relationships like master and servant, principal and agent will also
be considered as joint tortfeasor.

REMEDIES
There are various types of legal remedies. For instance, if something that belongs to you has
been taken away from you by a party, the court can either ask them to pay you back in money
or ask them to return your belongings as they were and may also punish the party in some
cases. The remedies available with respect to a tort are of two kinds: judicial and extra
judicial remedies.
 Judicial remedies are remedies by way of action at law i.e. granted by the court in an
action. The injured party may institute a suit in a court of law and obtain redress.
 Extra judicial remedies are available to a party by his own acts alone without restoring to
the aid of law.
Eg. Expulsion of a trespass, re-entry on land, etc.
JUDICIAL REMEDIES
These are the remedies for torts that the courts of law provide to an aggrieved party. They are
of three types:
 Damages
 Injunction
 Specific restitution of property
➢General Remedies
When the aggrieved person is taken back to the position that they were enjoying before their
rights were infringed or a tort was committed, they are said to have been provided with a
legal remedy. There are various types of legal remedies. For instance, if something that
belongs to you has been taken away from you by a party, the court can either ask them to pay
you back in money or ask them to return your belongings as they were and may also punish
the party in some cases.
1- Judicial Remedies: These are the remedies for torts that the courts of law provide to an
aggrieved party.
2- 2- Extra judicial Remedies: If the injured party takes the law in their own hand (albeit
lawfully), the remedies for torts are called extra-judicial remedies.

1.Judicial Remedies for Torts

As the term suggests, these are the remedies for torts that the courts of law provide to an
aggrieved party. Judicial remedies are of three main types:
 Damages
 Injunction
 Specific Restitution of Property

I. Damages

Damages, or legal damages is the amount of money paid to the aggrieved party to bring them
back to the position in which they were before the tort had occurred. They are paid to a
plaintiff to help them recover the loss they have suffered. Damages are the primary remedy in
a cause of action for torts. The word “damages” should not be confused with the plural of the
word “damage”, that generally means ‘harm’ or ‘injury’. The fundamental principle applied
to the assessment of an award of damages is that the claimant should be fully compensated
for his loss. He is entitled to be restored to the position that he would have been in, had the
tort not been committed, insofar as this can be done by the payment of money.

Types of Damages

 Nominal Damages
Nominal damages are those in which even though the plaintiff has suffered a legal injury at
the hands of the defendant, there is no actual suffered by him. These damages are provided in
the cases of Injuria sine damno in which the Court recognises the violation of the right of the
plaintiff, but the number of damages is so nominal or low because of no actual loss to the
plaintiff.

Constantine v. Imperial London Hotels Ltd

The plaintiff was a cricketer from West Indies who had gone to the defendant hotel to stay but
he was rejected based on his nationality, therefore, the plaintiff stayed at another hotel and did
not suffer any actual damage. In the case brought by him, the defendant was held liable
because the plaintiff’s legal right was violated despite no actual injury happening and they
had to pay nominal damages of five guineas.

Ashby v. White (1703) 92 ER 126

The plaintiff was prevented from voting by the defendant and the candidate for whom the
plaintiff was going to vote still won. The plaintiff sued the defendant. It was held that even
though no actual damage was suffered by the plaintiff, the defendant was still liable for
preventing him from exercising his legal right to vote and thus nominal damages were
awarded in this case.

 Contemptuous Damages

In these types of damages, the Court recognises that the right of the plaintiff is violated but to
show that the suit brought by the plaintiff is of such a trivial nature that it has only wasted the
time of the Court, the Court awards a meagre amount to the plaintiff as damages. This is like
the nominal damages but the only difference between the two is that in nominal damages the
plaintiff suffers no actual loss and in contemptuous damages, the plaintiff suffers actual
damage, but it is a trivial one in which he does not deserves to be fully compensated.

Illustration: If A’s dog enters B’s house and relieves himself and B accidentally steps on it and
is disgusted and thus, he brings a suit against A, the Court will rule in B’s favour but because
of such a trivial nature of this case the damages awarded by the Court will be of a meagre
amount.

 Compensatory Damages
 Compensatory damages are awarded to help the plaintiff to reach his original position at
which he was before the tort was committed against him. These damages are not awarded to
punish the defendant but to restore the plaintiff to his previous situation. These damages are
very helpful in cases of monetary losses in which the amount of loss can be easily calculated
and therefore that amount can be ordered to be paid to the plaintiff so that he can replace the
damaged product or goods with such amount.

Illustration: K takes T’s bike and due to his rash driving the bike gets damaged. Here K can
be awarded compensatory damages in which the amount for repairing the bike will be
payable to K by T so that the bike’s condition can be restored back to its original state.

 Aggravated Damages

These damages are awarded for the extra harm which is caused to the plaintiff which cannot
be compensated by the compensatory damages, and it is given for factors such as the loss of
self-esteem, pain and agony suffered by the plaintiff etc. which cannot be calculated in
monetary terms. These damages are therefore additional damages which are awarded to the
plaintiff other than the damages awarded for his pecuniary loss.

Illustration: A makes false claims against B because of which B’s standing in the society is
greatly affected and he is also ridiculed by people which leads to him losing his self-
confidence and self-esteem. aggravated damages for the humiliation and loss of confidence
because of his suffering which is caused by A’s act.

 Punitive Damages

These damages are also known as exemplary damages, and the purpose of these damages is
to punish the defendant and to make an example of him so that others are deterred from
committing the same act as he did. Thus, whenever a Court feels that the act of the defendant
was severely gross, it awards punitive damages against him to the plaintiff.

Illustration: A company advertises that its pill will help in quick weight loss and is made up
of natural ingredients, as a result, the plaintiff purchases it. But due to the pills containing
certain chemicals, it makes the plaintiff severely ill. Here the Court can not only allow
compensatory damages to the plaintiff but because of the company’s false claims, it can also
award punitive damages so that it does not repeat the act again.

 General and Specific Damages

When there is a direct link between the defendant’s wrongful act and the loss suffered by the
plaintiff. For instance, a person A, due to his negligence, collides his car with a person B,
who has a rare bone condition. In this case, the actual damage suffered by the plaintiff will be
compensated, not considering the rare bone condition of the plaintiff. General damages are
ascertained by calculating the amount of actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. For e.g, physical
pain and loss caused due to it, or if the quality of life of the plaintiff is lowered.

Special damages are awarded by proving special loss. There is no straitjacket formula to
derive the actual amount. The plaintiff must prove the loss suffered by him/her. For e.g.,
medical expense, loss of wage (prospective), repair or replacement of lost or damaged
goods/property.

 Remoteness of ‘Damage’
As discussed above, the main aim is to bring the aggrieved party back to the status quo, that
is, compensating the plaintiff. Generally, damage suffered by the plaintiff should be a direct
consequence of the defendant’s act. Any action can have multiple following consequences. A
person cannot be held accountable for all the consequences resulting from his act. The
remoteness of consequences resulting from a person’s act has been an issue of debate in the
Law of Torts over the years. Various tests were developed over time to determine what
consequences of an act can a person be held liable for. When there is no cause-and-effect
relationship between the defendant’s act and the injury caused to the plaintiff, the damage is
said to be too remote to be compensated.
Re Polemis Case (Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd)
In this case, Polemis, the plaintiff owned a cargo ship that they had chartered to the
defendants. While unloading cargo from the ship, the defendant’s employees accidentally
knocked a plank into the ship, which caused a spark to ignite, that resulted in an explosion.
The question before the court was, whether the damage due to the explosion was a direct
result of the act of the defendant’s employee. Leisboch Case (Liesbosch Dredger v SS
Edison) In this case, the plaintiff’s dredger was damaged and sunk by the defendants
(Edison), due to their negligence. The dredger was working under a contract with the terms
that some amount had to be paid if the work was not completed on time. The plaintiff did not
have enough funds to arrange a new dredger to complete the said work. They claimed all the
resulting damages. The court held that the plaintiff’s own lack of funds cannot be
compensated by the defendants.
II. INJUNCTION
Injunction is an equitable remedy available in torts, granted at the discretion of the court. An
equitable remedy is one in which the court, instead of compensating the aggrieved party, asks
the other party to perform his part of the promises. So, when a court asks a person to not
continue to do something, or to do something positive to recover the damage of the aggrieved
party, the court is granting an injunction. A very simple example is that of a court ordering a
company of builders to build on a land near a hospital, for the construction sounds may be
creating a nuisance to the hospital. An injunction is an order of a court that restrains a person
from continuing the commission of a wrongful act or orders the person to commit a positive
act to reverse the results of the wrongful act committed by him, that is, to make good what he
has wrongly done. To receive injunction against a party one must prove damage or the
possibility of prospective damage (apprehended damage). An injunction can be temporary or
permanent, and mandatory or prohibitory.
M/S. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. India Stationery Products
In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against M/s. India Stationery
Products for infringement of their trademark on their product ‘Nataraj’, in respect of pencils,
pens, sharpeners, erasers, etc, claiming that the trademark was adopted by them in 1961, and
that the defendants had wrongly got themselves registered a copyright similar to them. The
court ruled in favour of the plaintiff granting the defendant an interim injunction.

III. Specific restitution of property

The third judicial remedy available in the Law of Torts is that of Specific Restitution of
Property. Restitution means restoration of goods back to the owner of the goods. When a
person is wrongfully dispossessed of his property or goods, he is entitled to the restoration of
his property.

1- Extra Judicial Remedies for Torts

When a person can lawfully avoid or remedy himself without the intervention of courts, these
remedies for torts are called extra-judicial remedies for torts. In this, the parties take the law
in their own hands. Extra Judicial Remedies for torts refers to those remedies where an
aggrieved person can take such actions that can undo the damage that has happened to him,
without the court’s intervention.
There are 5 types of extra judicial remedies for torts that are available to people who have
suffered from some civil wrong. These include Expulsion of Trespasser, Right of Re-entry on
Land, Right of Re-caption of Goods, Abatement of Nuisance and Distress Damage Feasant.

i.Expulsion of trespasser

A person can use a reasonable amount of force to expel a trespasser from his property. The
two requirements are:

 The person should be entitled to immediate possession of his property.

 The force used by the owner should be reasonable according to the circumstances.

Illustration: A trespass into B’s property. B has the right to use reasonable force to remove
him from his property and re-enter himself.

ii. Re-entry on land

The owner of a property can removes the trespasser and re-enter his property, again by using
a reasonable amount of force only.

iii. Re-caption of goods

The owner of goods is entitled to recapture his/her goods from any person whose unlawful
possession they are in. Re-caption of goods is different from specific restitution in that it is an
extra-judicial remedy, in which the person need not ask the court for assistance, instead, takes
the law in his own hands.

Illustration: If A wrongfully acquires the possession of B’s goods, B is entitled to use

reasonable force to get them back from A.

iv. Abatement

In case of nuisance, be it private or public, a person (the injured party) is entitled to remove
the object causing nuisance.
Illustration: A and B are neighbours. Branches of a tree growing on A’s plot enter B’s
apartment from over the wall. After giving due notice to A, B can himself cut or remove the
branches if they are causing him nuisance.

v. Distress Damage Feasant

Where a person’s cattle/other beasts move to another’s property and spoil his crops, the
owner of the property is entitled to take possession of the beasts until he is compensated for
the loss suffered by him.

Novus Actus Interveniens

Novus actus interveniens is a Latin phrase that, when translated, amounts to ‘new intervening
act.’ It is a principle of Tort law.

Novus actus interveniens, in relation to a tortious action for negligence, can be defined as any
intervening act that can separate or break off the legal connection between a defendant’s
conduct and the final injury incurred by the plaintiff, thus preventing the defendant from
being held legally liable for the plaintiff’s harm.

For an act to be considered as Novus actus, it must be reasonably unpredictable.

If the second and subsequent act could be apprehended or stemmed from the first act itself,
then this principle will not be applicable, and the legal burden will not be waived off the
defendant. Attributed to this principle is a general rule of measuring the remoteness of
damage. If any outside force (Act of God or intervention by a third party) or the plaintiff
himself causes interventions subsequent damage to the injury already caused, then it will
amount to the remoteness of damage.

Martin v Isbard (1947)

For understanding this concept better, let us consider the case of Martin Vs. Isbard, a 1947
English case. In this case, Martin, the plaintiff, was traveling in a taxi which met with an
accident because of the negligence of the driver.

The plaintiff had experienced a concussion as a result of this accident and, when taken to the
hospital, was told that she suffered a major fracture in her skull. After recovering from the
initial shock, although she returned to work, she would occasionally feel dizzy and
experience headaches. For this reason, she stopped working and went to Melbourne with her
parents.
However, after a few weeks, she was told that a review of the X-ray showed that she had no
skull fracture. After this, she went under another X-ray examination which again said that she
did suffer a skull fracture. But a review of this report also resulted in the finding of an
erroneous medical report falsely stating that she suffered from a skull fracture.

Before this case went into a trial, the plaintiff had another X-ray done, revealing she never
suffered any injury in her skull. It was also determined that the occasional periods of
dizziness that she faced were more related to the stress induced from the wrong X-ray reports.

Now the question put before the Court was to determine the gravity of responsibility the taxi
driver ought to bear. Had he not been negligent in the first place, the accident would not have
taken place and resulted in the misleading X-ray reports.

The judge drew a conclusion that the anxiety caused to Miss Martin was a result of
negligence on the part of the doctors.

Thus, the Court opined that the two wrong X-rays were ‘Novus actus interveniens’ or a ‘new
intervening act’ which cut off the direct link between the final injury suffered and the initial
negligence contributed by the defendant.