<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (1) TMI 250 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101844</link>
    <description>Electric shock injuries caused by a live stay wire under the control of the Electricity Board justified an inference of negligence where the respondents failed to explain how the wire became live and their suggested cause was unproven. The court applied res ipsa loquitur because the occurrence was of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence and the material facts were within the respondents&#039; special knowledge. The Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act defence also failed, as the watchman engaged by the official liquidator did not fall within the statutory definition of workman. Compensation was then assessed on a broad basis, considering medical bills, burn injuries, treatment, pain and likely loss of earning capacity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:01:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 250 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101844</link>
      <description>Electric shock injuries caused by a live stay wire under the control of the Electricity Board justified an inference of negligence where the respondents failed to explain how the wire became live and their suggested cause was unproven. The court applied res ipsa loquitur because the occurrence was of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence and the material facts were within the respondents&#039; special knowledge. The Workmen&#039;s Compensation Act defence also failed, as the watchman engaged by the official liquidator did not fall within the statutory definition of workman. Compensation was then assessed on a broad basis, considering medical bills, burn injuries, treatment, pain and likely loss of earning capacity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>