This document discusses negligence related to dangerous articles and machinery. It notes that innocent-looking items can cause harm if mismanaged, and lists examples like footballs, gas cookers, and drills. Manufacturers and users of dangerous machinery have a duty to take precautions. Case law establishes that there is a duty to take extra care with dangerous items, and that manufacturers are responsible for products that harm customers. The document also examines the doctrine of imputability, where the negligence of one person like a driver can be attributed to others like passengers, though exceptions have been made for family members.

1. Negligence
Oct. 19, 2016
Mohammad Rubaiyat Rahman
Lecturer of Law
BSMRSTU
Gopalganj 8100

2. Special Situations of Negligence
• Liability for dangerous articles and machinery
• An innocent looking article may bring great loss and
suffering. Such innocent looking article may turn into a
dangerous chattel on account of mismanagement.
• The following articles if not properly taken care of and
secured would turn into dangerous chattels: Football;
gas cooker; long handled hammer; and a flying bit of a
drill.
• Persons employing and manufacturing dangerous
machinery are also under a duty to take proper
precaution.

3. Decisions
• In several cases, following opinions have been
provided:
• There is a peculiar duty to take precautions in
regard to dangerous article. (Dominion and
Natural Gas Co. v. Collins & Perkins)
• The duty to take care extends to a
manufacturer where the article manufactured
reaches the customer.(Donoghue v. Stevenson)

4. Decisions
• There is really no category of dangerous things
and that the care varies with the risk ahead.
(Beckett v. Newalls Industries Co. Ltd.)
• The liability for negligence depends on the
principle of reasonably foreseeable risk of
injury and it is not peculiar to a dangerous
article because such a class does not exist.

5. Special Situations
• Product Liability
• Situation before Donoghue v. Stevension case
• Before the decision of the case, there was no
liability for dangerous chattels apart from
contract. The Ginger Beer Case, revolutionized
the concept and expanded its ambit.
• Situation after Donoghue v. Stevension case
• The decision of the case is a turning point. The
previous arguments, before the decision of the
case, had lost its force and value.

6. Special situations
• Liability towards ultimate transferee
• Certain chattels may be dangerous per se.
Proper care must be taken to secure them.
Certain chattels may not be dangerous per se
but where the owner knows them to be so,
this very fact casts on him a duty to take care.
Itf the owner fails in this, he/she would be
liable.

7. The Doctrine of Imputability
(Doctrine of Accusation)
• The doctrine was originated in a British case
Thorogood v. Bryan.
• In this English case, along with driver, the
passengers were also accused for negligence. In
the decision, the case argued that,
• ‘The deceased passenger is also identified with
the driver as negligent because he voluntarily
become passenger.’
• The decision of the case had been overruled in a
maritime case Mills v. Armstrong.

8. • Facts and Decision of Mills v. Armstrong:
• Collision of two ships. The plaintiff
died due to the collision. Family of the deceased
plaintiff brought the case. Defendant raised the
defense of Doctrine of Imputability.
• The Court disallowed the defense and the deceased
plaintiff was granted to recover compensation.
• The doctrine is not allowed to operate between:
• Spouses;
• Children and Parent;
• Passengers and negligent driver

9. Case Decisions
• Case: Union of India v. Union of India
Insurance Co. Ltd.
• Held: The negligence of the driver of the
vehicle in which the passenger is travelling
cannot be imputed to the passenger.

10. Case Decisions
• Case: Narayan Jetha v. Municipal Commissioner, Bombay
(1891)
• Facts:
• A child of five or six years old fell into open manhole of
a sewer. The sewer was in control of the municipality. The
mother knew that the sewer was in control of the
municipal corporation of Bombay. She also knew that the
sewer was open and the child was playing beside her.
• The defendant raised the doctrine of Imputability and
argued that the child’s mother was negligent. The
argument was rejected by the court.
• Held: the defendant is guilty of contributory negligence.