Legal Aptitude || Principal & Facts Quiz || 26.06.2020

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) A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbour.

3) The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Facts : Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that that it caused siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of 7.50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?

Legal principle : The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn’t possess this skill or knowledge.

Facts : X and Y Co. were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on credit terms. X and Y Co. would be personally liable should the client default. To protect themselves, the X and Y asked their bankers to obtain a credit reference from K and L, the client’s bankers. The reference (given both orally and then in writing) was given gratis and was favourable, but also contained an exclusion clause to the effect that the information was given ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’. X and Y relied upon this reference and subsequently suffered financial loss when the client went into liquidation. X and Y sued K and L Co. for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. K and L argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements. Decide.

Legal Principles:

1) Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful arid 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 in 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) Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. Pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.

Facts : Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above the Dr. Hemant’s clinic. The Karan was found liable for emitting from their clinic obnoxious fumes which escaped downwards into Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his stall and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?

Facts : A team of scientists imported a virus for the purpose of research. They carried out research on their premises into foot and mouth disease in cattle, and they were apparently responsible for the escape of some virus. As a result, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the area, and the Minister of Agriculture ordered two markets to be closed. This caused the some of the traders, who were two firms of auctioneers, to suffer a loss of profits on a total of six market days, for which they sought to recover.

Decide whether the scientists owed a duty of care towards the traders?

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 to vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start 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 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?