हिंदी

Legal Principle: Nuisance is the Unlawful Interference with a Person’S Enjoyment of His Land Or Some Rights Over Or in Connection with It.

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Legal Principle: Nuisance is the unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of his land or some rights over or in connection with it.

Fact Situation: Ashok, in his nineties, is hard of hearing and plays the radio very loudly throughout the day and on a daily basis. Raju, his neighbor, complained that he cannot listen to his favorite TV show in his home due to the radio of Ashok.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

विकल्प

  • Listening to the radio is Ashok’s freedom.

  • Ashok is creating a nuisance to his neighbour by playing the radio loud perpetually and disturbing Raju in being able to listen to the TV in his home.

  • Raju is creating a nuisance by complaining about Ashok’s enjoyment of hearing his radio.

  • Raju should appreciate that Ashok is aged and hard of hearing.

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

Ashok is creating a nuisance to his neighbour by playing the radio loud perpetually and disturbing Raju in being able to listen to the TV in his home.

Explanation:

Private Nuisance. Private nuisance may be defined as unlawful interference with a person's use, comfort,  enjoyment, and any interest that a person may have over his land... An interference becomes unlawful and constitutes a nuisance when it unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's enjoyment of his land.  Ashok will be considered as creating a nuisance for his neighbor as he is listening to music at unreasonably high volumes which are interfering with the right of his neighbor Raju.

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  क्या इस प्रश्न या उत्तर में कोई त्रुटि है?
2017-2018 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्न

What Is an ECO-MARK?


Which of the following is not a reason for the general lack of liability for omissions in English law?


Mark the best option:
Principle: A person, who provides his services to another, needs to be paid for the same. In case he is not paid, he needs to become compensated by the person who availed his services.
Facts: Jack went to the restaurant to have dinner. After having a good meal he realized he didn't have enough money to pay for the bill. He told the manager of the restaurant about the problem. The manager asked him to give his watch and his Parker pen in lieu of the money for the bill. Is Jack liable to give his watch and pen instead of the money?


The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a more recent development than the traditional torts of trespass to the person. To which of those torts is it most closely related?


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
  4. 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?


PRINCIPLE A person is not liable for every harm which comes from the act but is only liable for those harms which can be reasonably foreseen at the time of the injury.

FACTS Sumati, who was being threatened by armed robbery pulled the railway chain. The engine driver recorded the chain pulling but did not stop thinking it to be the work of mischievous passengers wishing to alight before the station. As a result, no help came to Sumati, who was robbed and injured. The suit brought by her was resisted by the railways. As a judge, you would


When the master is held liable for the wrongful acts of his servant, the liability is


In Torts, the remedy is


Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:

Legal Principle: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the State is not vicariously liable in tort.

Factual Situation:
A’ was a trader in gold. There he was arrested by Police and was detained in the police lock-up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things was seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. HE moved against the State in tort. In the words of the Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized.” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.


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.

Legal principle: A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of employment.

Factual situation: PUL, a public sector undertaking, is operating a number of bus services for its employees in Pune. These buses are quite distinct in their appearance and carry the board “for PUL employees only”. M, a villager from a neighbouring state, was waiting for a regular bus in one of the bus stops in Pune. A bus belonging to PUL happened to stop nearby and a number of people got into the bus. M, without realizing that it was a PUL bus, got into the bus and soon thereafter, the bus met with an accident due to driver’s negligence. M, along with several others, was injured in the accident. M seeks to file a suit against PUL claiming damages. DECISION:


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×