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.
विकल्प
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.
Advertisements
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
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: The concept of natural justice is against bias and for the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, and it has largely been replaced and extended by the general ‘duty to act fairly’.
Facts: ‘X’, a male employee of a company was dismissed by the employer just on the basis of a complaint by ‘Y’, a female employee of the company that ‘X’ was trying to be too friendly with her and often requested her to accompany him to the canteen. Is the dismissal of ‘X’ valid?
Mark the best option:
Principles: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it, is a nuisance in law of tort.
Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who having a licence to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and l also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant. which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?
Decide:
Mark the best option:
Principles:
- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interesting, is covered within the above provision.
Facts: Monty is a tenant in the Sharmas' house, living on the top floor while the Sharmas occupy the ground floor. However, he is always irregular in paying the rent. The Sharmas' are tired of asking him to pay on time and his manners have deteriorated over time. What started as mere excuses snowballed into name-calling, until one day, Monty threatened to come with his friends and vandalize the Sharmas' house, if they complained or took action against him.
Will Monty be guilty of criminal intimidation?
Alexander and Alexandra have consensual sex. Alexander knows that he has the sexually transmitted disease genital herpes but he does not tell Alexandra. She later contracts herpes. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Alexandra sues Alexander in the tort of battery?
Which one of the following interests are not protected by the law of tort?
Injuria sine damnum stands for.
The railway authorities negligently allowed a train to be overcrowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose the appropriate answer.
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 Res ipsa loquitur reverses the burden of proof, creating a rebuttable presumption of the guilt of the defendant in situations where the default of the defendant seems apparent.
FACTS X, a truck driver, crashed into Y for no fault of his while trying to save Z, a student who was loitering in school uniform. Based on the facts above, Y inquires the presumption of negligence shall be in favour of
PRINCIPLE An unlawful action is sufficient to establish an actionable claim under the law of torts and the court need not go into the motivations behind such unlawful action.
FACTS Z, a reporter, had approached A, a famous politician, several times for an interview. Z knew that A was having an affair with his secretary. Frustrated and vengeful, z ran a cover story about the affair disclosing all the information and evidence of the affair. A in tum sued Z for defamation, stating the action was based on vendetta and malice on account of his refusal to give Z an interview. The suit against Z shall
