Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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.
Options
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.
Solution
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
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: The sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Facts: 'A‘ entered into an agreement with 'B‘ for the sale of liquor. 'A‘ failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to B.
Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offense.
Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pull up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her.
Principle: In cases where there is an infringement of legal right even without any actual loss or damage, the person whose right is infringed has a cause of action.
Facts: 'P' was wrongfully prevented by the Returning Officer from ex ercising his vote in an assembly election. However, the candidate for whom he wanted to caste his vote won the election. Still, he ('P') brou ght an action claiming damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?
In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
- The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
- A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
- The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.
Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligences and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of a wilful act intended to cause him harm or done with reckless disregard.
FACTUAL SITUATION Tony, a Richman, had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near the dog. Further, a special handler was hired to take care of the dog. Visitors were warned by a prominent warning signboard about this dog.
One day, a 13 years old boy playing in the neighbourhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and kill him, Tony was sued for damages.
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Facts:
Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened a'S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. 'Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time' and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realized this only when Keshav disappeared from, the scene one day and she sought compensation from the Bank.
Possible Decisions
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.
Possible Reasons
(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud" was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshay.
(iii) It is the Bank's duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest. Your decision with the reason
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: In a civil action for defamation, the truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defense. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.
Facts: 'D' who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that 'P', who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a 'mischief monger'. 'P' brought a civil action against 'D', who could not prove the facts published by him.
Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?
Given below is a Statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle: The owner of immovable property is entitled to the column of airspace above the surface. However, the owner's right to air and space above his land is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures on it.
Factual Situation: Galaxy Cable TV Network Company is providing cable connections to their customers. One of the cables passes over the house of Mr. Vasanth Bhat., He is not a customer of the Network Company. The cable is neither attached to his house nor to any projection thereof.
It is at a distance of 20 ft above the terrace of Mr. Bhat's two-storied house. Because of the cable, Mr. Bhat's son Sachin is unable to fly a kite from the terrace. Mr. Bhat requested the Network Company to change the position of the cable. But the company did not bother to change it. One evening, Mr. Bhat out the cable and cleared the airspace above his house. The Network Company suffered a loss of about ₹ 1000. They bring legal action against Mr. Bhat for recovery of loss suffered. DECISION:
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?
