ASSIGNMENT 3

COURSE : LAW OF TORTS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

COURSE INSTRUCTOR- PROF. NEHA SINHA

STUDENT’S NAME- SRIMUGAN R

ID NUMBER – 20191BAL0080

SEMESTER- III

SECTION- 4

DATE OF SUBMISSION- AUGUST 18, 2020

1. Difference between trespass and nuisance.

Difference between trespass and nuisance are:

 Trespass to land means interference with the possession of land without any
lawful justification whereas, nuisance means not hampering with the possession
but to interfere in the enjoyment of land.
 In trespass, the interference with the possession is direct whereas, in case of
nuisance it is indirect.
 In case of trespass the interference is through some tangible object whereas, in
case of nuisance it can be through both tangible as well as non-tangible object.
 A trespass is actionable per se whereas, in case of nuisance special damage has to
be proven.

2. Difference between misfeasance and non-feasance.

Difference between misfeasance and non-feasance:

 Misfeasance means “improper performance of some lawful act”. Misfeasance

means carrying out legal and improper action, but it is done in such a way that it
harms others or causes injury to another person whereas, Nonfeasance, is an
omission from discharging duty. But that omission should give rise to an action in
torts that must be impressed with some characteristics, namely, malice or bad
faith.
 The term “misfeasance” is utilized in Tort law to describe any act that is lawful
yet which has been performed inappropriately or in an unlawful manner. On the
other hand, the term non-feasance describes the failure to do any act that causes
harm to another person.

3. Nervous shock: master and servant relationship.

Nervous shock can be seen as a mental injury or medically recognized psychiatric illness.
nervous shock means when it affects one’s mind and then suffers a shock which leads to
injury.
In case of master and servant relationship, the court says that the duty of care only exist
solely on the basis of the relationship where as in the other cases it was necessary that the
identification of the person was done who owed the duty of care to a distinction between
primary and secondary victims and impose any restrictive criteria possible to determine it
under second category who could recover.