Whether the search that the defendant's carried out was unreasonable and negligent in nature causing damage to plaintiff?
If a person is exercising their right under a statute they are not liable unless it is proved that they acted unreasonably or negligently.
Can the defendants be held liable for the damages caused to the public even though they had taken all precautions and had no fault involved in the accident?
Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate with regard to the principle of strict liability
Can the defendant plead the defense of Act of God?
Professor Winfield, following Pollock, has defined act of God as “an operation of natural forces so unexpected that no human foresight or skill could reasonably be expected to anticipate it.”
Does a public official have to prove “actual malice” before he can recover damages in a defamation action against persons criticizing their official conduct because the 1st Amendment of the US protects false statements against public officials.
A State cannot, under the First Amendment (freedom of speech) award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves "actual malice" -- that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.
Freedom of expression vs the right to privacy in matters related to public officials.
Once something becomes a part of public record, it cannot be protected under right to privacy and thus can be publishes even without consent. However, if someone publishes something without the consent of a person, whether true or not, will be violating privacy if the matter is not of public record.
Did the defendants take sufficient precautions to protect the spectators?
Did the plaintiff consent to risks associated with being a spectator?
One has the duty to take care of things which are reasonably foreseeable but not of things which cannot be foreseen by a reasonable person standard.
Can the defense of Volenti non fit Injuria apply to this case?
Anyone who entered the large area open to public cannot be called as a volunteer to the act, only those who were inside the cordon could have been considered to be a volunteer to the act.
Can the words of the defendant constitute libel?
If the words would tend to, in general lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking member of society then it might constitute libel from a case to case basis.
Did the advertisement constitute defamation?
Knowledge of the innuendo by the defendant is immaterial and the defendant is nevertheless liable for a statement he believes to be innocent, but is in fact defamatory by reason of facts unknown to him, but known to the persons to whom he makes it.
Whose negligence was the real or substantive cause of the accident?
There can be three instances:
(1) The driver of the bus was alone responsible for the accident; (2) the deceased alone was responsible; and (3) both were responsible, as negligence of both substantially caused the accident.
Negligence of both the parties occurred simultaneously so as to make it impossible to say with assurity that either could have avoided the consequence of the others negligence and both parties must be held to have substantially caused the accident.