Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 80

  Practice-Finding of fact not challenged in grounds of appeal-Counsel may addressarguments on finding with Appellate Court's permission.   Tort-Negligence-Liability of occupier of premises to third persons for injuries received by such persons through occupier's negligence-Principles stated.   As a general rule, the occupier of a property owes no duty to a trespasser, but there might be cases where a trespasser, who is injured on account of wilful default, or gross negligence on the part of the occupier of the property, or his agents or employees is entitled to claim damages from the occupier of such property.   The point was not free from difficulty. After examining authorities, their Lordships held the following principles as established :-   If an action is based on the allegations of negligence on the part of the defendant, itis not only necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant, or his agents or servants were negligent, but also to show that their negligence was the real, or proximate, cause of the accident.   Mere negligence on the part of the plaintiff would not disentitle him to damages forthe injury caused, unless it can also be held that his negligence was the direct or proximate cause of the injury and that the same could have been avoided if he had taken due precautions.   The case of a trespasser stands on a different footing from that of an invitee, or a licensee and, generally speaking, the occupier of a property is under no duty to him, but if he is injured as a result of wilful negligence on the part of the occupier, or his agents or servants, he would be entitled to recover.   The appellant had suffered injuries to his right arm by coming into collision with a goods wagon set in motion on a dark night by a severe windstorm while the appellant was crossing the railway line, not at, but some distance away from, the level crossing. It was argued by the respondent that the appellant was a trespasser and therefore respondent was not liable.   Held, the accident took place on account of gross negligence on the part of the respondent's employees which negligence amounted to…