Case Analysis

Case Analysis of P & O Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State, 1868

By

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. The Secretary of State for India[1]

Structure

Facts

One day a servant of the plaintiff company was driving a horse carriage during his employment with the EIC. There was a government dockyard based at Kiderpore, situated partly both sides of the road. A river steamer belonging to Government was also lying nearby for repairs. One day, certain workmen were riveting a piece of iron along the road. They were walking in between the road, although enough space was left on both sides of the road. Suddenly, a private carriage appeared. The coachmen shouted a warning to workmen, the carriage also slowed down. The workmen seeing the carriage close to them, dropped the iron and ran away. A loud noise frightened the horses and they rushed forward against the iron and were injured. The damages were claimed to be Rs. 350. The plaintiff filed an action under Section 55 of Act IX of 1850 to recover from the Company Rs 350 being the damages sustained by reason of injuries caused to a horse of the plaintiff through the negligence of certain servants of the Company.

It is known that the people carrying rods were employees of the defendant company. The offended company sued the defendants. The plaintiffs made Secretary of State for India a party because of the East India Company's sovereign activities.

An action was brought for recovery of these damages against the Secretary of State for India-in-Council, as employer of the workmen.

Issues

Whether the Secretary of State-in-Council was liable for the damage caused by the negligence of the servants of the Government, assuming them to have been guilty of such negligence, as would have rendered an ordinary employer liable.

Judgment

Sir Barrens Peacock, C.J.

  1. Peacock observed that in cases of accidents caused by the negligence of servants employed by the Government, the liability would extend to the Government itself. He drew a parallel with the East India Company, stating that they would have been liable for similar incidents, and this liability also applied to the Secretary of State-in-Council. The Secretary of State could be sued to obtain satisfaction from the revenue of India.
  2. It was clarified that there is a clear distinction between acts done in the exercise of sovereign powers and those carried out by private individuals without such powers. Where acts are done in the exercise of sovereign powers, no action will lie.
  3. It was stated that the workers employed by the government at the dockyard were not engaged in activities within the scope of sovereign powers. Therefore, the liability extended to the Government, including the Secretary of State for India, for the negligent actions of its personnel.

Held: It was held that the Government, including the Secretary of State, was liable for accidents caused by the negligence of its employees, as such negligence fell outside the scope of sovereign powers and was akin to actions that could be conducted by private individuals.

 

[1] Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India (1868) 5 Bom HCR App 1.

Related posts