Dinesh left his car with his pet dog inside and went for shopping. When he came back, he was told that the dog broke the glass of the car and splinter of the glass fell into a passer-by Rajesh’s eye and blinded him.

By Maria Sharwari from Surendranath Law College, Kolkata

Question: Dinesh left his car with his pet dog inside and went for shopping. When he came back, he was told that the dog broke the glass of the car and splinter of the glass fell into a passer-by Rajesh’s eye and blinded him. Decide the liability.

Facts of the Case:Mr. Dinesh left his car with his pet dog inside and went for shopping.For unknown reason the dog broke the glass of the car.A splinter of the glass fell into a passer-by Rajes’s eye and blinded him.

Remarks:Accident means an unexpected injury and if the same could not have been foreseen and avoided, in spite of reasonable care on the part of the defendant, it is inevitable accident.

According to Pollock, “It does not mean absolutely inevitable, but it means not avoidable by any such precautions as a reasonable man, doing such an act then and there, could be expected to take.” It is, therefore, a good defence if the defendant can show that he neither intended to injure the plaintiff nor could he avoid the injury by taking reasonable care.

This particular case involves the concept of inevitable accident. As from the facts of the case it can be gathered that Mr Dinesh in the matter is not to be blamed for any wrong. Mr Dinesh neither intended to injure Rajesh nor could he avoid the injury by taking reasonable care.

Therefore, Mr Dinesh is not liable in this particular situation.

Relevant Case Laws:

In Holmes v. Mather, the defendant’s horses were being driven by his servant on a public highway. The horses were so startled by the barking of a dog that they became unmanageable, and, in spite of best care by the defendant’s servant to control them, they knocked down the plaintiff.

It was held that the defendant was not liable. Bramwell B., said: “The driver is absolutely free from all blame in the matter; not only does he not do anything wrong but he endeavours to do what is the best to be done under the circumstances. The misfortune happens through the horses being so startled by the barking of a dog that they run away with the groom and the defendant, who is sitting beside him.

Now, if the plaintiff, under such circumstances, can bring an action, I really cannot see why she could not bring an action because a splash of mud, in the ordinary course of driving, was thrown upon her dress or got in her eye and so injured it. It seems manifest that, under such circumstances, she could not maintain an action. For the convenience of mankind, in carrying on the affairs of life, people as they go along roads must expect, or put up with, such mischief as reasonable care on the part of the others cannot avoid.”

In Brown v. Kendall, the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s dogs were fighting. While the defendant was trying to separate them, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in his eye, who was standing nearby. The injury to the plaintiff was held to be the result of pure accident, for which no action could lie.