Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Doing of an act which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or which is likely to cause such injury or annoyance is Public nuisance. A common nuisance is not excused because it causes some nuisance or advantage.
Facts: 'A‘ a farmer having large farmlands burns crop residue (stubble) on his fields after harvesting the crop to make the field ready for next crop as this is the easy, fast and convenient method of making the field ready for next crop. His farmlands are adjoining a densely inhabited residential area and people pass through the smoke while traveling on the road adjoining his farmlands. The smoke caused by fire also enters the houses in the colony.
Options
A has not committed any offence since he does not cause any specific injury to any specific person
A has not committed any offence because he does not gain any advantage from persons living in the vicinity
A has committed a public nuisance
A has not committed any offence because the alleged acts are done on the fields owned and used by him and acts are done without any intention to cause harm.
Advertisements
Solution
A has committed a public nuisance
Explanation:
A has committed public nuisance as defined in the principle. According to the principle: “Doing of an act which causes common injury, danger or annoyance to public or which is likely to cause such injury or annoyance is Public nuisance.” X’s action of burning crop stubbles is a public nuisance because smoke caused by his action is disturbing to the public. The principle also states that “A common nuisance is not excused because it causes some nuisance or advantage.” This may be interpreted to mean that X’s action cannot be excused even if it is advantageous to his farm.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Mark the best option:
Facts: Manohar and Dev are childhood friends. One day while ploughing the field they have an argument and end up in blows. Satish, another farmer, has to intervene and separate them. Manohar swears that he will take revenge. In the evening Satishtells Dev that Manohar wants to reach a settlement and asks him to wait near the Mukhiya’s farmland behind the rose bush. Dev sits behind the bush and waits. Meanwhile, Satish goes to Manohar and tells him that wild animals have attacked theMukhiya’s farmland and asks Manohar to bring his shotgun to scare the animals away. On reaching the farm, Satish shouts out loudly that he has spotted a leopard behind the rose bush and asks Manohar to fire at the bush. Manohar fires two rounds. The bullet hits and kills Dev.
Principle: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.
Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.
Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is
Rape involves an offence which is against:
Which of the following could not constitute battery if done with the requisite intent?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course of employment.
Factual Situation: New Vision School opened a boarding house (Shivaji House) for boys in the year 2000 for the students having behavioral and emotional difficulties. The claimants in the instant case had resided there between 2000 to 2003, being aged 12 to 15 during that time, under the care of a warden, who was in charge of maintaining discipline and the running of the house. The warden lived in the House, with his disabled wife, and together they were the only two members of staff in the House. His duties were ensuring order, in making sure the children went to bed, went to school, engaged in evening activities, and supervising other staff. It had been alleged by some of the boys that the warden had sexually abused them, including inappropriate advances and taking trips alone with them. A criminal investigation took place some ten years later, resulting in the warden being sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Following this, the victims brought an action for personal injury against ~he employers, alleging that they were vicariously liable. Whether the employers of the warden may be held vicariously liable for their employee's intentional sexual abuse of school boys placed under his care?
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
1. A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others.
2. Valenti's non-fit injury is a defence to negligence.
Factual Situation
K was a friend of L and was teaching her to drive. Prior to such an arrangement, K had sought assurances from L that appropriate Insurance had been purchased in the event of an accident. On the third day, L was executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed when she panicked which resulted in the car crashing into a lamp-post injuring K. L was subsequently convicted of driving without due care and attention. L denied liability to pay compensation to K on the ground of volenti non-fit injuria and also that she was just learning to drive and was not in complete control of the vehicle. Decide.
Principle: A citizen is expected to take the reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
The standard of care generally used in cases of negligence is the
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: Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, has committed an offense, which shall be punished in accordance with the law.
Facts: 'X', a truck driver, driving his vehicle rashly and negligently at a high speed climbed the footpath and hit 'Y' a pedestrian, from behind causing his death.
