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.
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
Principle: Employer is liable for the injury caused to the employee in the course of his employment.
Facts: X organized a party and hired a caterer. During the party, the generator set went out of order and he requested one employee of caterer i.e. Y to bring the mechanic on his vehicle and promised to pay 1000 for the same to Y. Y met with an accident while going to fetch the mechanic and he seeks compensation.
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?
What kind of contact must the plaintiff prove as an element of the tort of battery?
Every murder is a culpable homicide but every culpable homicide is not murder. This statement
Mark the best option:
Principles: In case, where the government is a party, the government shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
Facts: The Government of the State of X entered into an agreement with a retired Professor of Botany. Resultantly he wrote the book.
Which of the following is not an objective of the law of tort?
The defence under nuisance is
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
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.
Principle: Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or an act which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. An action for negligence proceeds upon the principle that the person has an obligation or duty on the part of the defendant, which he/she breaches, leading to damage.
A, a surgeon operated on B. Subsequent to the operation, B complained of pain in his abdomen. On examination, it was discovered that A had left a mop in B ' s stomach while Operating.
