Law on Torts (part-1)

Law on Tort

Definition of Tort-

Tort derived from the Latin word tortum, which means to twist. It includes that conduct
which is not straight or lawful. It is equivalent to the English term wrong.
Salmond- It is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated
damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation.
We may define tort as a civil wrong which is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages
and which is other than a mere branch of contract or breach of trust.

Distinction between Tort and crime-
Tort Crime
i Less serious wrongs are considered as
!rivate wrongs and have been labelled as
civil wrong.
i "ore serious wrongs have been considered
to be !ublic wrongs and are #nown as crimes.
ii The suit is filed by the in$ured !erson
himself.
ii The case is brought by the state.
iii %om!romise is always !ossible. iii E&ce!t in certain cases, com!romise is
not !ossible.
iv the wrongdoers !ays com!ensation to the
in$ured !arty.
iv The wrongdoer is !unished.

Distinction between Tort and breach of contract-
Breach of contract Tort
i It results from breach of a duty underta#en
by the !arties themselves.
i It occurs from the breach of such duties
which are not underta#en by the !arties but
which are im!osed by law.
ii In contract, each !arty owes duty to the
other.
ii 'uties im!osed by law of torts are not
towards any s!ecific individual but towards
the world at large.
iii 'amage of contract is liquidated. iii 'amage of tort is unliquidated.
iv It !rovides limited remedy iv It !rovides unlimited remedy.

Distinction between Tort and Breach of trust-
Tort Breach of Trust
i 'amage of tort is unliquidated. i 'amage of breach of trust is liquidated.
ii Law of tort was !art of common law. ii Law of trust was !art of %ourt of
%hancery.
iii Tort is !artly related to the law of
!ro!erty.
iii Trust is a branch of law of !ro!erty.

Latin terms and maxims-

Causa causans- (n immediate and effective cause.
Causa sine quanon- ( necessary cause) the cause without which the thing cannot be or the
event would not have occurred.
*ome !receding lin# but for which the causa causans, that is, the immediate cause could not have
become o!erative.
East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1962-
Municipal Board v. tate !ransport Aut"orit#, AIR, 196$-
%rem Bus ervice v. R.!.A, AIR 196&-
C"oc'alin(am v. C.I.!, AIR, 196)-
Ina#atulla" v. Custodian, Evacuee %ropert#, AIR, 19$&-

Volenti non fit inuria- There is no in$ury to one who consents.
*all v. Broo'lands Auto Racin( Clu+- The !laintiff was a s!ectator at a motor car race being
held at +roo#lands on a trac# owned by the defendant com!any. 'uring the race, there was a
collision between two cars, one of which was thrown among the s!ectators, thereby in$uring the
!laintiff. It was held that the !laintiff im!liedly too# the ris# of such in$ury, the danger being
inherent in the s!ort which any s!ectator could foresee, the defendant was not liable.

%admavati v. ,u((anai'a- While the driver was ta#ing the $ee! for filling !etrol in the tan#, two
strangers too# lift in the $ee!. *uddenly one of the bolts fi&ing the right front wheel to the a&le
gave way to!!ling the $ee!. The two strangers were thrown out and sustained in$uries, and one of
them died as a consequence of the same.
It was held that neither the driver nor his master could be made liable, first, because it was a case
of sheer accident and, secondly, the strangers had voluntarily got into the $ee! and as such, the
!rinci!le of volenti non fit in$uria was a!!licable to this case.

-ooldri(e v. umner- The !laintiff, who was a !hotogra!her, was ta#ing !hotogra!hs at a horse
show while he was standing at the boundary of the arena. ,ne of the horses, belonging to the
defendant, rounded the bend too fast. (s the horse gallo!ed furiously, the !laintiff was
frightened and he fell into the horses course and there he was seriously in$ured by the gallo!ing
horse. The horse in question won the com!etition. It was held that since the defendants had ta#en
due care, they were not liable. The duty of the defendants was the duty of care rather than duty of
s#ill.

!x turpi causa non oritur actio - .o action arises from a wrongful consideration.
*ard# v. Motor Insurers. Bureau- This was a case where a security officer was dragged along
when he tried to sto! a car. Lord 'enning "/ said0 no !erson can claim re!aration or indemnity
for the consequences of a criminal offence where his own wic#ed and deliberate intent is an
essential ingredient in it1 It is based on the broad rule of !ublic !olicy that no !erson can claim
indemnity or re!aration for his own wilful and cul!able crime. 2e is under a disability
!recluding him from im!osing a claim.

Revill v. /e0+err#- (n elderly allotment holder was slee!ing in his shed with a shotgun, to deter
burglars. ,n hearing the !laintiff trying to brea# in, he shot his gun through a hole in the shed,
in$uring the !laintiff. (t first instance, the defendant successfully raised the defence of ex turpi to
avoid the claim.

Damnum sine inuria " 'amage without wrongful act) damage or in$ury inflicted without any
act of in$ustice) loss or harm for which there is no legal remedy. It is also termed damnum
absque injuria.

There are cases in which the law will suffer a man #nowingly and wilfully to inflict harm u!on
another, and will not hold him accountable for it.

1loucester 1rammar c"ool Case- The defendant, a schoolmaster, set u! a rival school to that
of the !laintiffs. +ecause of the com!etition, the !laintiffs had to reduce their fees from 34 !ence
to 56 !ence !er scholar !er quarter. It was held that the !laintiffs had no remedy for the loss thus
suffered by them.

Mo(ul teams"ip Co. v. Mc1re(or 1o0 and Co.- ( number of steamshi! com!anies combined
together and drove the !laintiff com!any out of the tea7carrying trade by offering reduced
freight. The 2ouse of Lords held that the !laintiff had no cause of action as the defendant had by
lawful means acted to !rotect and e&tend their !rofits.

2s"a+en v. B"a(#ala3mi C"itra Mandir 4 The !laintiffs sued for a !ermanent in$unction
against the defendants to restrain them from e&hibiting the film named 89ai *antoshi "aa:. It
was contended that the film hurt the religious feelings of the !laintiff in so far as ;oddesses
*araswati, La&mi and <arvati were de!icted as $ealous and were ridiculed. It was observed that
hurt to religious feelings had not been recogni=ed as a legal wrong. "oreover, no !erson has a
legal right to enforce his religious views on another or to restrain another from doing a lawful
act, merely because it did not fit in with the tenets of his !articular religion. *ince there was no
violation of a legal right, request of in$unction was re$ected.

Action v. Blundell 4 The defendants by digging a coal !it interce!ted the water which affected
the !laintiffs well, less than 64 years old, at a distance of about one mile. 2eld, they were not
liable. It was observed0 8The !erson who owns the surface, may dig therein and a!!ly all that is
there found to his own !ur!oses, at his free will and !leasure, and that if in the e&ercise of such
rights, he interce!ts or drains off the water collected from underground s!rings in the
neighbours well, this inconvenience to his neighbour falls within descri!tion damnum abseque
injuria which cannot become the ground of action.

#nuria sine damno- This ma&im means in$ury without damage. Wherever there is an invasion
of a legal right, the !erson in whom the right is vested is entitled to bring an action and may be
awarded damages although he has suffered no actual damage. Thus, the act of tres!assing u!on
anothers land is actionable even though it has done the !laintiff not the slightest harm.
As"+# v. -"ite 4

B"im in(" v. tate of 5 6 7 4 The !etitioner, an "L(, of 9 > ? (ssembly, was wrongfully
detained by the !olice while he was going to attend the (ssembly session. 2e was not !roduced
before the "agistrate within the requisite !eriod. (s a consequence of this, the member wad
de!rived of his constitutional right to attend the (ssembly session. There was also violation of
fundamental right guaranteed under the %onstitution. +y the time the !etition was decided by the
*u!reme %ourt, +him *ingh had been released, but by way of consequential relief, e&em!lary
damages amounting to @4,444 were awarded to him.
"ore11111111111111111111111
Terminolo$ies

%alice- ( condition of mind which !rom!ts a !erson to do a wrongful act wilfully, that is, on
!ur!ose, to the in$ury of another, or to do intentionally a wrongful act toward another without
$ustification or e&cuse.
In its legal sense it means a wrongful act done intentionally without $ust cause or e&cuse.
"alice is a wish to in$ure a !arty, rather than to vindicate the law. "alice of two ty!es0
i "alice in fact
ii "alice in law
Malice in fact 4 "eans an actual malicious intention on the !art of the !erson who has done the
wrongful act. It is also called e&!ress or actual malice.
Malice in la0 4 It is not necessarily !ersonal hate or ill will, but it is that state of mind which is
rec#less of law and of the legal rights of the citi=en.

%oti&e " "otive is that which incites or stimulates a !erson to do an act. It is the moving !ower
which im!els to action for a definite result.
"otive is mains!ring of human action. It is cause or reason. It is something which !rom!ts a
man to form an intention.

#ntention " ( settled direction of the mind towards the doing of a certain act) that u!on which
the mind is set or which it wishes to e&!ress or achieve) the willingness to bring about something
!lanned or foreseen.

#nur'- In legal !arlance, in$ury means any wrong or damage done to another, either in his
!erson, rights, re!utation or !ro!erty.
"eaning under <enal %ode, 5AB4 Csection 33 - the word in$ury denotes any harm whatever
illegally caused to any !erson, in body, mind, re!utation or !ro!erty.

(urt " Whoever causes bodily !ain, disease or infirmity to any !erson is said to cause hurt.

%alfeasance " it is a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do, or any wrongful
conduct which affects, interru!ts, or interferes with !erformance of official duty, or an act for
which there is no authority or warrant of law or which a !erson ought not to do at all, or has
contracted not, to do.
The word malfeasance would a!!ly to a case where an act !rohibited by law is done by a
!erson. !hairul "ahsar v. #hana $al %I& '()*+

%isfeasance " Dnlawful use of !ower) wrongful !erformance of a normally legal act) in$urious
e&ercise of lawful authority) official misconduct) breach of law.
The word misfeasance would a!!ly to a case where a lawful act is done in an im!ro!er manner.

)onfeasance - .on !erformance of some act which ought to be !erformed, omission to !erform
a required duty at all, or total neglect of duty.
.onfeasance would a!!ly to a case where a !erson omits to do some act !rescribed by law.

,istinction between -isfeasance. nonfeasance and malfeasance / -isfeasance is the
improper doing of an act which a person may wilfully do. 0onfeasance means the omission of an
act which a person ought to do. -alfeasance is the doing of an act which a person ought not to
do at all.

*emedies

/emedies are of two ty!es7 (i) udicial and (ii) extra-udicial+
5udicial remed# is of three ty!es0
(i) Dama$es, (ii) #nunction and (iii) *estitution of propert'

T'pes of dama$es -
a8 E3emplar# or 9indictive dama(es 4 are damages on an increased scale, awarded to the
!laintiff over and above what will barely com!ensate him for his !ro!erty loss, where the
wrong done to him was aggravated by circumstances of violence, o!!ression, malice etc.
+8 :rdinar# or Real dama(es 4 are com!ensation for general damage. ;eneral damages are
those which the law im!lies in every breach of contract and in every violation of a legal
right.
c8 /ominal dama(es 4 They are awarded for the vindication of a right where no real loss or
in$ury can be !roved.
d8 Contemptuous dama(es -

#nunction- ( $udicial !rocess o!erating in personam. and requiring a !erson to whom it is
directed to do or refrain from doing a !articular thing. Law as to the in$unction is contained in
the *!ecific /elief (ct 5EBF and the %<% 5E4A. T'pes of inunction "
;i8 Mandator# 4 When, to !revent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to com!el the
!erformance of certain acts, the %ourt may in its discretion grant an in$unction to !revent the
breach Cs. @@ of the *!ecific /elief (ct, 5AGG.
;ii8 %ermanent or perpetual 4 +y !er!etual in$unction a defendant is !er!etually en$oined from
the assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the
rights of the !laintiff Cs. @F, the *!ecific /elief (ct, 5AGG.
;iii8 !emporar# 4 Tem!orary in$unction is such as is to continue until a s!ecified time, or until
the further order of the %ourt. It is regulated by the %<% Cs. @F, The *!ecific /elief (ct,
5AGG) %<% ,rder HHHIH /ule 5.
;iv8 Ad-interim -

Restitution of propert# 4 /estitution means restoration of anything to its rightful owner.

E3tra-<udicial remedies are-
i8 elf defence 4 The use of force to !rotect oneself, ones family, or ones !ro!erty from a real
or threatened attac#.
ii8 E3pulsion of trespassers 4 Iorcibly evicting the tres!asser.
iii8 Reception of c"attels 4 %hattel means movable or transferable !ro!erty) !ersonal !ro!erty.
iv8 Re-entr# of land 4
v8 A+atement of nuisance 4 (batement is the act of eliminating or nullifying) the act of
lessening or moderating.
vi8 ,istress dama(e feasant 4 the right to sei=e animals or inanimate chattels that are damaging
or encumbering land and to #ee! them as security until the owner !ays com!ensation.

-ho ma' sue and who ma' be sued

Every !erson can sue in case of tort including the minor with the consent of his guardian or the
court.
!"e follo0in( persons cannot sue-
i8 Citi=en of forei(n state 4 If a citi=en of foreign country wants to file a suit against a
+angladeshi or a other citi=en of foreign country, he has to file an a!!lication to the 2ome
"inistry through the Law "inistry Cs. AF of %<%
ii8 Alien enem# 4 Every !erson residing in a foreign country the ;overnment of which is at war
with, or engaged in military o!erations against +angladesh and carrying on business without
a license will be regarded as an alien enemy.
(lien enemies residing in +angladesh with the !ermission of the ;overnment, and alien
friends may sue. .o alien enemy residing in +angladesh without such !ermission or residing
in a foreign country shall sue Cs. AF of %<%
iii8 >orei(n state 4 ( foreign state cannot sue unless it is recogni=ed by the ;overnment.
vi8 Ban'rupt 4 The guiding law in this regard is the +an#ru!tcy (ct, 5EEG. If a !erson is
declared insolvent, his !ro!erties are ta#en over and a receiver is a!!ointed as the
su!ervisor of that !ro!erty. ( ban#ru!t cannot sue as long as civil wrongs are concerned.
v8 >elons?Convicts 4 Ielon is a !erson who has been !roven guilty and declared with
!unishment but fled away. %onvict is a !erson who has been !roven guilty but has not fled
away.
( felon cannot file a suit. +ut a convict can file a suit.
vi8 Corporation 4 ( cor!oration gets a legal entity when it is registered. .o unregistered
cor!oration can file a suit.
vii8 C"ild in mot"er.s 0om+ 4 This is called !re7natal in$uries.
1al2er v. 3.0. &y. 4o. of Ireland / the !laintiff, a child, sued the railway com!any for
damages on the ground that he had been born cri!!led and deformed because the in$ury was
caused to it Cbefore birth by an accident due to railways negligence, when the !laintiffs
!regnant mother travelled on the defendants railway. It was held that the defendants were
not liable for two reasons. Iirstly, the defendants did not owe any duty to the !laintiff as they
did not #now about his e&istence) secondly, the medical evidence to !rove the !laintiffs
claim was very uncertain.
-ontreal #ramways v. $eveille / The *u!reme %ourt of %anada allowed an action by a child
born with club feet two months after an in$ury to its mother by the negligence of the
defendants.
"a$ority of the writers are in favour of the view that an action for !re7natal in$uries should
also be recogni=ed, once that the act of the defendant is considered to be tortious.

-"o ma# not +e sued -
i+ 5resident6head of the state / (ccording to (rticle @5C5 and @5C6 of the %onstitution, no
civil or criminal suit can be filed against the <resident as long he is holding the !ost of the
<resident.
ii+ 7oreign sovereign / .o suit can be filed against a foreign sovereign unless a consent to the
same is obtained from that sovereign Cs. AB > AG.
iii (mbassador J 2igh %ommissioners - 2igh %ommission is an embassy from one
commonwealth country to another.
iv+ 5ublic servants / The list of the !ublic servants are given in s. 65, 5F > 53 of the <enal
%ode, 5AB4. (lso who are a!!ointed through <*% are to be regarded as !ublic servants.
(n a!!lication for consent from the ;overnment is required before filing a suit against them.
v+ 4orporation / Dnless it is a registered cor!oration, a suit cannot be filed against it.
vi+ Infant 6 -inor / (ccording to the <enal %ode, a minor is a child of E - 56 years. +ut age of
the minor varies in various *tatues.
vii+ 8nsound mind / There are
various (ct for lunatics and unsound minds, e.g. the Lunacy (ct, 5E56.

)e$li$ence

!ssentials of ne$li$ence-
i The defendant owes a duty of care to the !laintiff)
ii The defendant made a breach of that duty) and
iii The !laintiff suffered damage as a consequence thereof.

i8 !"e defendant o0es a dut# of care to t"e plaintiff
It means a legal duty rather than a mere moral, religious or social duty. There is no general rule
of law defining such duty. It de!ends in each case whether a duty e&ists.
,ono("ue v. tevenson 4 ( !urchased a bottle of ginger beer from a retailer for the a!!ellant.
*he consumed that and seriously suffered in her health. *he found some snail at the bottom of
the bottle. *he sued for com!ensation. The defendant !leaded that he did not owe any duty of
care towards the !laintiff. The 2ouse of Lords held that the manufacturer owed her a duty to ta#e
care that the bottle did not contain any no&ious matter, and that he would be liable on the breach
of the duty.
%als(raaf v. @on( Island Railroad Co. 4 The !laintiff with a !ac#age was trying to board a
moving train. Two servants of the defendant came to hel! her. ,ne of them !ushed her from the
bac#. (t this moment the !ac#age fell on the rail trac#. The !ac#age contained firewor#s and it
e&!loded. The !laintiff was in$ured. *he sued the defendants alleging negligence on the !art of
their servants. It was held that she could not recover. %ardo=o %9 said, the conduct of the
defendants servant was not wrong. /elatively to her it was not negligence at all.
,ut# depends on reasona+le foreseea+ilit# of in<ur#
If at the time of omission, the defendant could reasonably foresee in$ury to the !laintiff, he owes
a duty to !revent that in$ury and failure to do that ma#es him liable.
/o lia+ilit# 0"en in<ur# is not foreseea+le
1las(o0 Corp. v. Muir 4 The manageress of the defendant %or!oration tea7rooms !ermitted a
!icnic !arty. Two members of the !icnic !arty were carrying a urn of tea through a !assage.
There were some children buying sweets and ice7cream. *uddenly, one of the !ersons lost his
gri! and the children including Eleanor "uir were in$ured. It was held that the manageress could
not antici!ate that such an event would ha!!en as a consequence of tea urn being carried through
the !assage, and, therefore, she had no duty to ta#e !recautions against the occurrence of such an
event.
Reasona+le foreseea+ilit# does not mean remote possi+ilit#
Bolton v. tone 4 ( batsman hit a ball and the ball went over a fence and in$ured a !erson on the
ad$oining highway. This ground had been used for about E4 years and during the last F4 years,
the ball had been hit in the highway on about si& occasions but no one had been in$ured. The
%ourt of (!!eal held that the defendants were liable for negligence. +ut the 2ouse of Lords held
that the defendants were not liable on the basis of negligence.
,ut# of care 4 Boo'er v. -en+orn ;19628 - The defendant boarded a train which had $ust started
moving but #e!t the door of the carriage o!en. The door o!ened outside, and created a danger to
those standing on the !latform. The !laintiff, a !orter, who was standing on the edge of the
!latform was hit by the door and in$ured. It was held that the defendant was liable because a
!erson boarding a moving train owed a duty of care to a !erson standing near it on the !latform.

ii8 Breac" of dut# 4 +reach of duty means non7observance of due care which is required in a
!articular situation. The law requires ta#ing of two !oints into consideration to determine the
standard of care required0 Ca the im!ortance of the ob$ect to be attained, Cb the magnitude of the
ris#, and Cc the amount of consideration for which services, etc. are offered.
;a8 !"e importance of t"e o+<ect to +e attained 4
7. /a(ireddi v. 1overnment of And"ra %rades" 4 'ue to construction of a canal by the state
government, all the trees of the !laintiffs orchard died. The !laintiff alleged that the government
due to negligence did not cement the floor. It was held that the construction of canal was of great
im!ortance and to not cementing the floor was not negligence from the state government.
;+8 !"e ma(nitude of ris' 4
7erala tate Electricit# Board v. ures" 7umar 4 ( minor boy came in contact with overhead
electric wire which had sagged to F feet above the ground, got electrocuted thereby and received
burn in$uries. The Electricity +oard had a duty to #ee! the overhead wire 5@ feet above the
ground. The +oard was held liable for the breach of its statutory duty.
;c8 !"e amount of consideration for 0"ic" services, etc. are offered 4
7laus Mittel+ac"ert v. East India *otels @td. 4 the question of liability of a five star hotel arose
to a visitor, who got seriously in$ured when he too# a dive in the swimming !ool. It was
observed that there is no difference between a five star hotel owner and insurer so far as the
safety of the guests is concerned. It was also observed, a five star hotel charging high from its
guests owes a high degree of care as regards quality and safety of its structure and services it
offers and ma#es available.

iii8 !"e plaintiff suffered dama(e 4 It is also necessary that the defendants breach of duty must
cause damage to the !laintiff. The !laintiff has also to show that the damage thus caused is not
too remote a consequence of the defendants negligence.

*es ipsa loquitur- It means the things itself s!ea#s. When the accident e&!lains only one thing
and that is that the accident could not ordinarily occur unless the defendant had been negligent,
the law raises a !resum!tion of negligence on the !art of the defendant.
*am+roo' v. to'es Bors. 4 *oon after !arted with her children in a narrow street, a lady saw a
lorry violently running down the narrow street. When told by some bystander that a child
answering the descri!tion of one of her children had been in$ured, she suffered a nervous shoc#
which resulted in her death. The defendant was held liable.
,ic'son v. Reuter 4

Contributor' ne$li$ence
When the !laintiff by his own want of care contributes to the damage caused by the negligence
or wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.
This is a defence in which the defendant has to !rove that the !laintiff failed to ta#e reasonable
care of his own safety and that was a contributing factor to harm.
Rural !ransport ervice v. Be=lum Bi+i ;19&A8 4 The conductor of an overcrowded bus invited
!assengers to travel on the roof of the bus. The driver ignored the fact that there were !assengers
on the roof and tried to overta#e a cart. (s a result, a !assenger was hit by a branch of tree, fell
down, received in$ury and died. It was held that both the driver and the conductor were negligent
towards the !assengers, there was also contributory negligence on the !art of the !assengers
including the deceased, who too# the ris# of travelling on the roof of the bus.
Bo(inder %aul C"o0d"ur# v. ,ur(adas ;19C28 4 The 'elhi 2igh %ourt has held that a
!edestrian who tries to cross a road all of a sudden and is hit by a moving vehicle, is guilty of
contributory negligence.

,octrine of alternative dan(er 4
There may be certain circumstances when the !laintiff is $ustified in ta#ing some ris# where
some dangerous situation has been created by the defendant. The !laintiff might become nervous
by a dangerous situation created by the defendant and to save his !erson or !ro!erty, he may ta#e
an alternative ris#. If in doing so, the !laintiff suffered any damage, he will be entitled to recover
from the defendant.
5ones v. Bo#ce ;1&168 4 The !laintiff was a !assenger of defendants coach. The coach was
driven so negligently that the !laintiff $um!ed off the bus fearing an accident and bro#e his leg. It
was held that the !laintiff would be entitled to recover.
"a#am under v. tate of Ra<ast"an ;19CD8 4 'ue to the negligence on the !art of the
defendants, a truc# belonging to them caught fire. ,ne of the occu!ants, .avneetlal, $um!ed out
to save himself from the fire, be struc# against a stone lying by the roadside and died. The
defendants were held liable.

)e$li$ence in our laws
The <enal %ode, 5AB4 -
s+ ./0 " If anyone has custody of !oisonous substance and fails to guard against !robable danger
is !unishable with B month or 5444 ta#a or with both.
s+ ./1 - If anyone acts rashly or negligently to endanger human life with fire or combustible
substance is !unishable with B month or 5444 ta#a or with both.
s+ ./2 " If anyone acts rashly or negligently to endanger human life with e&!losive substance is
!unishable with B month or 5444 ta#a or with both.
s+ ./3 " If anyone acts rashly or negligently to endanger human life with any machinery is
!unishable with B month or 5444 ta#a or with both.
s+ .// " If anyone in !ulling down or re!airing any building #nowingly or negligently omits to
guard against !robable danger to human life, he will be !unishable with B months or 5444 ta#a or
with both.
s+ ./4 " If anyone #nowingly or negligently omits to ta#e such order with any animal in his
!ossession as is sufficient to guard against any !robable danger to human life or any !robable
danger or grievous hurt from such animal, shall be !unished with B months or 5444 ta#a or with
both.