Lee v. Knapp

Decorative shape 3
Decorative shape 4
Decorative shape 5
Lee v. Knapp
Avatar

By FG Lawkit

  • November 4, 2025

Lee v. Knapp

GOLDEN RULE

INTRODUCTION

The Golden Rule is a rule wherein the words of a statute must be given their ordinary meaning. Natural and ordinary meaning of the words should not be departed from unless it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning. It is a rule considered as the modified principle of the grammatical interpretation.

As observed in the Sussex Peerage: "The only rule for the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to explain the words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such cases, best declare the intention of the law-giver.”

Parke J. observed in Becke v Smith that “If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, in our judgement, we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense, even though it does lead, in our view of the case, to an absurdity or manifest injustice. Words may be modified or varied where their import is doubtful or obscure, but we assume the function of legislators when we depart from the ordinary meaning of the precise words used merely because we see, or fancy we see, an absurdity or manifest injustice from an adherence to their literal meaning.”

Further it was observed that the term “Golden Rule” was adopted in Grey v Pearson.

{1.7 Rule of Literal Construction, by Avatar Singh} {6.2 Literal Rule of Interpretation and Golden Rule of Interpretation, by NS Bindra}

FACTS

The defendant, the managing director of a company, had driven a vehicle round the block in the City in which his company’s office stood for the particular purpose of demonstrating to his own van driver that a new two-ton van that the company had bought was really quite easy to handle, the driver had been doubtful about that. An accident occurred involving the van.

ISSUE

The issue involved in the current case is whether the defendant committed a breach of Section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 when he left the van.

RULE

Section 77(1) Road Traffic Act, 1960 states that:

“if in any case owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, an accident occurs wherein damage is caused to a vehicle other than that motor vehicle, the driver of the motor vehicle shall stop and, if required, give his name and address and also the name and address of the owner and the identification marks of the vehicle if there exists reasonable ground.”

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

  • This Hon'ble court adopted what was mentioned by Napier J in Noblet v. Condon and further determined that the phrase in Section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 “the driver of the motor vehicle shall stop” is properly to be construed as meaning that the driver of the motor vehicle shall stop it and remain where he has stopped it for a period of time depending upon the circumstances. The court further observed that it is the driver’s own personal obligation to stay for such a period as indicated, and personally provide the information.

  • The literal meaning of "shall stop" could simply mean bringing the vehicle to a halt, even for a second. However, applying this literal meaning would lead to an absurdity and nullify the clear purpose of the statute, which is to allow for the exchange of information.

  • By applying the Golden Rule (the modification/correction to the literal meaning), the Court interpreted "shall stop" to include the implied requirement to wait for a reasonable time to fulfill the subsequent statutory obligations of providing information.

  • This Hon'ble court held that in the present case, the driver stopped for a moment after causing the accident, then drove away. On construing the golden rule, the driver had not followed the requirements of the Section when he didn't stop for a requisite period of time after the accident allowing the authorities to make the necessary inquiries from him.

{pg 60, The Interpretation of Statutes by Bhattacharyya}