<?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>1997 (1) TMI 548 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199425</link>
    <description>A municipal corporation&#039;s statutory power and responsibility to plant and maintain roadside trees did not, by itself, create an absolute private law duty enforceable in damages. Liability in negligence required a duty of care owed to the deceased or a clearly identified class, reasonable foreseeability of the specific harm, and a sufficiently proximate causal link between the omission and the injury. On the facts, a tree suddenly fell in still weather without visible signs of decay or danger, so the occurrence was too remote to establish actionable negligence. The corporation was therefore not liable, and the claim for compensation failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 17:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=510898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 548 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199425</link>
      <description>A municipal corporation&#039;s statutory power and responsibility to plant and maintain roadside trees did not, by itself, create an absolute private law duty enforceable in damages. Liability in negligence required a duty of care owed to the deceased or a clearly identified class, reasonable foreseeability of the specific harm, and a sufficiently proximate causal link between the omission and the injury. On the facts, a tree suddenly fell in still weather without visible signs of decay or danger, so the occurrence was too remote to establish actionable negligence. The corporation was therefore not liable, and the claim for compensation failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>