Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: A person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damage.
Facts: A, an industrialist stored 1000 litres of liquid ammonia in a tank in his premises for his industrial use. There was a leakage from the tank due to which there was ammonia vapour in the surroundings. Many workers in other industries, as well as his own industry and some members from the public, suffered serious health hazards. Examine the liability of A, if any.
पर्याय
A may be liable for the injury sustained by his workers only and not others.
A is liable as he is responsible for the injury caused by the leakage of ammonia from his premises.
A is not liable because there was no fault on his part for the escape of the dangerous substance.
A is not liable because he did not expect a leakage from the tank.
उत्तर
A is liable as he is responsible for the injury caused by the leakage of ammonia from his premises.
Explanation:
The liability cast on such person who is holding or keeping dangerous article in his home is known, in law, as strict liability, for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the escape of such dangerous thing, the holder or keeper is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are injured or incurred losses.
Thus in the case presented before us, the answer holds good and A is liable as he is responsible for the injury caused by leakage of ammonia from his premises.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
"No action lies against the Government for injury done to an individual in the course of exercise of its sovereign functions". All of the following actions are covered by the above provision, except
Principle: Killing is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by intense and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation.
Facts: 'A', a man found his girlfriend sleeping, in her own bedroom, with another man named 'B'. 'A' did not do anything but went to his home, picked a gun and cartridges, returned to the girl friend's bedroom with a loaded gun but found the place empty. After fifteen days he saw his girlfriend dining in a restaurant. Without waiting for even a second, 'A' fired five bullets at his girlfriend who died on the spot.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: Acceptance of a proposal must be absolute and unqualified.
Facts: ‘A’ made a proposal to sell his motorcycle to ‘B’ for rupees 25, 000/. ‘B’ agreed to buy it for rupees 24,000/. ‘A’ sold his motorcycle to ‘C’ for 26,000/ the next day. ‘B’ sues ‘A’ for damages.
Mark the best option:
Principle: When the plaintiff by reason of his own conduct contributes to the damage caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant, he is considered to be guilty of contributory negligence.
Facts: A had to buy groceries from the shop across the road from his house. As A had to leave for a meeting he was in a hurry. He tried to cross the road, all of a sudden, without looking and was hit by B's car. Is A guilty of contributory negligence?
Mark the best option:
Principle: An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of willful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregard.
Facts: Jaspal, a richman of the locality had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near that dog and there was a special attender who was to take care of the dog. There was a prominent board warning the visitors about the ferocious dog. One day, a twelve-year-old boy playing in the neighborhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and killed him. Jaspal was sued for damages.
What is the essential difference that makes the crime of assault differ from the tort of assault?
PRINCIPLE The use of force with the intent to cause harm, or annoy or induce· fear is termed as the Torts of battery.
FACTS A group of construction workers was negligently handling bricks bycatch and throw. Simmons was passing by the site where one such brick fell on Simmons and he brought a case of battery against the contractor under whose employment the workmen were carrying out the construction.
PRINCIPLE The test as to whether the act done by an officer or agency of the state is a sovereign function or a function done ordinarily is dependent on the fact that an alternative person may also carry out the latter, but the former may only be carried out by the state.
FACTS In a boundary settlement dispute between India and Bangladesh, a certain territory was exchanged in pursuit of a treaty agreement. X's land which lay in the Indian enclave thus got transferred to Bangladesh, which did not recognise his proprietary rights. In a suit against the Indian Government, the likely outcome is
Suit and nuisance are
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target for vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start a fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular inspections and employing a caretaker. Decide whether the occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?
