{"id":245728,"date":"2021-03-18T12:40:38","date_gmt":"2021-03-18T07:10:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=245728"},"modified":"2021-03-19T10:36:49","modified_gmt":"2021-03-19T05:06:49","slug":"strict-liability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/","title":{"rendered":"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities"},"content":{"rendered":"

Orissa High Court: <\/strong>D Dash J. dismissed the appeal and held the appellants liable for compensation.<\/p>\n

The facts of the case are such that the husband of the Plaintiff\u2019 in the original suit, aged 44 years, earning Rs 8000 a month was going to his agricultural field suddenly came in contact with 11 K.V. electric wire, electrocuted and met an instantaneous death by said electrocution. Plaintiff 1 being wife and Plaintiff 2 being mother of the deceased filed the suit claiming compensation from the Defendants i.e. Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa and its officials. The trial court held that the Plaintiffs are entitled to be compensated by the defendants on account of negligence. The Defendants then preferred an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court and Plaintiff filed a cross-appeal for increasing the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, the lower appellate court has allowed the cross-appeal enhancing the quantum of compensation. Assailing the said dismissal order instant second appeal under Section 100 Civil Procedure Code i.e. CPC was filed.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the appellants Mr B. Dash submitted that the basis of the evidence that the overhead live electric wire being snapped when touches the ground, the supply of electricity through that wire is totally disrupted from end to end which has gone unchallenged; the courts below ought not to have said that the death of the husband of Plaintiff was due to the electrocution for the reason that the deceased came in contact with snapped overhead electric wire when he was on his way to the agricultural field. It was further submitted that the factual aspect is beyond pleadings and based on evidence.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondents Mr B. Mohanty submitted that the court did commit no mistake in recording the said findings under attack and those are based on just and proper appreciation of evidence on record. It was submitted that the assessment of compensation as made by the lower appellate court is also in consonance with the settled principles as have been holding the field.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the principle of law is settled that a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”.<\/p>\n

The Court further observed that it is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human, being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy.<\/p>\n

The Court thus held \u201cthat the mistake committed by the trial court on those factual aspects by ignoring certain evidence on record and in not taking judicial notice of certain facts has been well rectified in appeal and in that way, it is found that the lower appellate court has so exercised its jurisdiction and power within the four corners of law.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>In view of the above, appeal was dismissed.<\/em>[Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha v. Damayanti Samal, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 166<\/b><\/a>, decided on 15-03-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Orissa High Court: D Dash J. dismissed the appeal and held the appellants liable for compensation. The facts of the case are <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[45484,29785,3065,44092,34349,41214],"class_list":["post-245728","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cross-appeal","tag-law","tag-negligence","tag-onus-of-proof","tag-section-100-cpc","tag-strict-liability"],"yoast_head":"\n[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Strict Liability\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Strict Liability\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-03-18T07:10:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-19T05:06:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/orissa-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/18\\\/strict-liability\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/18\\\/strict-liability\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-18T07:10:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-19T05:06:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/18\\\/strict-liability\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":608,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"Cross Appeal\",\"law\",\"negligence\",\"onus of proof\",\"section 100 cpc\",\"Strict Liability\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/18\\\/strict-liability\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/18\\\/strict-liability\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/18\\\/strict-liability\\\/\",\"name\":\"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-18T07:10:38+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-19T05:06:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Strict Liability\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/18\\\/strict-liability\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/18\\\/strict-liability\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/03\\\/18\\\/strict-liability\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities | SCC Times","description":"Strict Liability","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities","og_description":"Strict Liability","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-03-18T07:10:38+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-19T05:06:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/orissa-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities","datePublished":"2021-03-18T07:10:38+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-19T05:06:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/"},"wordCount":608,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["Cross Appeal","law","negligence","onus of proof","section 100 cpc","Strict Liability"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/","name":"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-03-18T07:10:38+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-19T05:06:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Strict Liability","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/18\/strict-liability\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Strict Liability] Ori HC | Onus of proof, which lies on a party alleging negligence should be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":219491,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/13\/hp-hc-in-the-case-of-composite-negligence-apportionment-of-compensation-between-two-tortfeasors-vis-a-vis-the-plaintiff-is-not-permissible-claim-under-tort-set-aside\/","url_meta":{"origin":245728,"position":0},"title":"HP HC | In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-a-vis the plaintiff is not permissible; Claim under tort set aside","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 13, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. contemplated an appeal where the appellant was aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby the suit was ordered to be dismissed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, has filed the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":271912,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/19\/it-is-not-for-the-court-to-decide-the-validity-of-the-allotment-of-land-by-the-government-tripura-high-court-dismisses-appeal-in-suit-for-recovery-of-possession-of-land\/","url_meta":{"origin":245728,"position":1},"title":"“It is not for the court to decide the validity of the allotment of land by the Government”; Tripura High Court dismisses appeal in suit for recovery of possession of land","author":"Editor","date":"August 19, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J. dismissed a second appeal which was filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment which dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment passed by Civil Judge ( Senior Division) in connection with declaring the right, title & interest of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Tripura High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/tripura-high-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":248691,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/25\/malicious-prosecution\/","url_meta":{"origin":245728,"position":2},"title":"Madras HC | Who is liable in suit for malicious prosecution; what is duty of civil court; where lies onus of proof? HC answers all,\u00a0 says no ‘second agnipariksha’ for plaintiff","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: G.R. Swaminathan, J., held that to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution, the acquittal of the plaintiff alone is not sufficient. Rather, the plaintiff is obliged to prove (i) that the prosecution was without any reasonable and probable cause, and (ii) that it was instituted with\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":213664,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/18\/ori-hc-acceptance-of-contract-must-be-signified-by-some-act-agreed-on-by-the-parties-or-from-which-the-law-raises-a-presumption-of-acceptance\/","url_meta":{"origin":245728,"position":3},"title":"Ori HC | Acceptance of contract must be signified by some act agreed on by the parties or from which the law raises a presumption of acceptance","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 18, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: The Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J. dismissed the suit for realization of the insurance money on the ground that no communication of renewal of the policy was made at the time of the alleged occurrence and no risk could be assumed in the absence of any\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":355664,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/05\/ori-hc-awards-family-compensation-for-electrocution-death-of-labourer\/","url_meta":{"origin":245728,"position":4},"title":"Orissa High Court holds Power Company strictly liable for electrocution death; awards Rs 2 lakh compensation to labourer\u2019s family","author":"Editor","date":"August 5, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Distribution company had the statutory responsibility of distribution and supply of electricity in the locality, the Court is of the considered view that by application of the principle of strict liability, the Distribution Company are strictly liable for the death of deceased and are liable to pay compensation to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"electrocution death","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/electrocution-death.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/electrocution-death.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/electrocution-death.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/electrocution-death.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":244973,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/04\/contributory-negligence\/","url_meta":{"origin":245728,"position":5},"title":"Singapore HC | While deciding Contributory Negligence, Court discusses two significant factors: Causative Potency and Blameworthiness || Detailed Report discussing importance of \u2018Right of Way\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 4, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"High Court of Republic of Singapore, General Division: Aedit Abdullah, J., while addressing the matter on contributory negligence, observed that: Having the right of way does not equate to a licence to collide with another road user in exercising that right. Plaintiff was a passenger with a few others aboard\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245728","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245728"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245728\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245728"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245728"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245728"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}