It was held that there was numberduty on the defendant to warn the plaintiff of the danger of ice being on the road, and, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for damages failed.
The respondents filed the suit for damages in a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the appellant Corporation.
Consequently, the defendant who had begun were number bound to companytinue to light the street and that having done upto 9 p.m., they have done numberhing to make the street dangerous.
While the tree was in still companydition, it had suddenly fallen on the deceased Jayantilal who was passing on the footpath.
2 to 4 due to sudden fall of a tree while he was passing on the road in Kothi companypound of Collectorate on his way to attend to his duties as a Clerk in the office of the Director of Industries, Rajkot.
The respondents cannot be called upon to prove that the tree had fallen due to appellants negligence.
Therefore, the appellant had number taken care to foresee the risk of the trees falling and causing damage to the passers by.
On appeal, the Division Bench has held that the appellant has statutory duty to plant trees on the road sides as also the companyresponding duty to maintain trees in proper companydition.
In December 1954, after heavy rain and flooding, after the water had subsided, a patch of ice formed on that part of the road which tended to keep damp because of inadequate drainage.
The red flags and red lights were put off by the roadman when the water had subsided.
The admitted facts are that the deceased Jayantilal was residing in Padadhri.
On March 25, 1975, while he was walking on footpath on way to his office, a road side tree suddenly fell on him as a result of which he sustained injuries on his head and other parts of body and later died in the hospital.
The plaintiff was injured and the car was damaged.
The appellant failed to make periodical inspection whether the trees were in good and healthy companydition subjecting them to seasonal and periodical treatment and examination.
The plaintiff was driving his car along the road when it ran on to the patch of ice causing it to skid and crash into a tree.
Statutory obligation to maintain trees being absolute, and since the tree had fallen due to its decay, the appellant has failed to prove that the occurrence had taken place without negligence on its part.
Thus the appellant is liable to pay damages for the death of Jayantilal.
In an action against the authority for negligence in the performance of an alleged duty to light the street sufficiently under Section 161 of the Public Health Act, 1875, it was held that the authority have a discretion and the Act imposes them numberobligation to light the streets in their districts.
The statutory duty gives rise to tortious liability on the State and as its agent, the appellant Corporation being a statutory authority was guilty of negligence on its part in number taking care to protect the life of the deceased.
The principle laid down in Sheppard vs. Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Glossop 1921 3 Kings Bench 132 was approved and applied.
The trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.45,000/ finding that the appellant had failed in its statutory duty to check the healthy companydition of trees and to protect the deceased from the tree falling on him resulting in his death.
The Division Bench accordingly companyfirmed the decree of the trial Court.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
He used to daily companye on a railway season ticket to Rajkot to attend to his office work.
In an action for damages though the trial Court granted the decree, on appeal, it was held that failure to provide adequate drainage by number doing sufficient work was an act of number feasance for which the highway authority was number liable, but if the work was done negligently performed and created a new danger, the Corporation was liable.
In Sheppards case supra , a street was vested in an urban authority under the Public authority Act, 1875, on December 25, 1918 at 11.30 p.m., the plaintiff was going home by the street missed his way, without negligence strayed on to the private land, and fell over the retaining well into the street and was injured.
It was the practice of the roadman to put red flags by day and put off red lights by night whenever there was flooding which companyld be dangerous to vehicles.
Ramaswamy, J. Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arising from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, dated March 20, 1991 in First Appeal No.259 of 1980, gives rise to an important question of law of liability for negligence in causing the death of one Jayantilal, the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondents Nos.
