SEAT NUMBER (IN NUMBERS): 454516

SEAT NUMBER (IN WORDS): FOUR LAKHS FIFTY-FOUR THOUSAND FIVE

HUNDRED AND SIXTEEN
SEMESTER: 2
NAME OF THE COURSE: LAW OF TORTS AND MV ACT AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT 2

Answer 2 option 1:

Himanshu grows exotic plants some of which are even poisonous. It

grows into a tree and its branches spread over Ram’s adjoining house.
Nitya (6 years old) got hold of the poisonous leaves which fell from the
overhanging branches of the poisonous exotic tree. She thought it was a
basil leaf and therefore started consuming the same. Soon, she started
feeling nauseous and had to be taken to the hospital. Ram now wants to
sue Himanshu.
I would suggest Ram to sue Himanshu for Negligence. Winfield describes
negligence as the breach of duty to take care which result in damages.
Negligence has 3 key characteristics:
◦ The action is not intentional.
◦ The action is also not planned.
◦ Some type of injury is caused.
Here, the action from Himanshu was not intentional. He did not have
Nitya eat poisonous leaves on intention. He also did not plan this action or
its consequence. Injury was caused to Nitya and hence all three
characteristics of negligence is fulfilled in the given case.
In the case of Heaven V Pender (1883), it was held that:
‘One man may owe duty to another, even though there is no contract’.

Here, there was no contract between Himanshu and Ram. But, Himanshu
owed a duty of care towards Ram. This is a straight case of strict liability.
The defendant that is Himanshu was keeping a dangerous thing on his
land. This dangerous thing escapes and consequential damages are done.
This type of negligence is called as advertent negligence. This is also
called as wilful negligence or recklessness.
In Donoghue Vs. Stevenson, (1932), the omission to take this duty of
care constitutes to negligence. In his case, the manufacturer of a ginger
beer sold ginger beer in an opaque bottle to a retailer. The ginger beer, in
fact, contained decomposed remains of a snail. The girl who drank it was
forced to sue the respondent manufacturers of the ginger beer.
It was held that the manufacturers owed a duty of care towards the girl
which it breached causing substantial damage to the girl and was hence
liable for negligence towards the girl.
The case establishes the neighbour principle which determines whether
the defendant owes a duty of care or not. Lord Atkin stated:
“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.”

In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti,

The building was 80 years old and the life of the structure of the top
storey, having regard to the type of mortar use, could be only 40 to 45
years and the middle storey could be saved for another 10 years. The
collapse of the Clock Tower was due to thrust of the arches on the top
portion. If an expert had examined this building specifically for the
purpose, he might have found out that it was likely to fall. The High Court
held that the principle of res ipsa loquitur be applied to the case and the
municipal corp. be held liable.

The essentials of negligence are as follows:

1.That the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
2.The defendant breached that duty.
3.The plaintiff suffered damage as a consequence thereof.

Taking all the understanding from these cases and concepts, Himanshu
will be held liable for negligence and Compensatory Damages will be
awarded to the plaintiff. Actual damages reimburse an individual for
funds paid out for medical treatments.

Answer 2 option 1:

Rahul was running a mixed farm (growing crops and rearing animals). A
part of his farm was used by the people as a short cut to get to the
nearby bus stop. Rahul disliked it as people would sometimes even tread
upon the crops and destroy them. He put up a board that “All
trespassers shall be prosecuted”. He even mentioned that his farm is
a mixed farm. He sometimes tolerated the trespassers on grounds of prior
approval.
One day, Aman, who was crossing the farm for the first time to get to the
bus stop, was attacked by a cow belonging to the farm. Aman sustained
multiple damages as a consequence thereof. Aman decided to file a suit
against Rahul.

Trespass quare olasum fregit means Entry on otherʼs land.

‘Trespass to land’ is an intentional or negligent, unlawful entry upon or
direct interference with the land in another’s possession.’
The essentials for trespass to land areas follows-
 Entry on the land should be made without permission or should be
illegal.
 Entry should not be forced; it should be due to negligence or
reasonable mistake but must be voluntary.
 Entry must be intentional.
 The land must be owned by the plaintiff.

Here in the given case, the land belonged to the defendant that is Rahul.
Entry by Aman was not done after prior permission from the property
owner and was hence illegal.
The land was a mixed farm, cows on a farm is reasonable use of the land.
Rahul was not wrong in keeping domestic animals on his farm.
Furthermore, he was unhappy with people misusing his land as a shortcut
and he also put-up warning boards that said trespassers will be
prosecuted. He anyways allowed some who did ask him and took prior
permission.
Aman did not take permission and crossed the farm where he was
attacked by a cow belonging to the farm. Aman sustained multiple
damages as a consequence thereof.
In the case of,
Harrison V. Duke of Rutland
An improper user of a highway may be a trespass. The duke commonly
held grouse shoots on his land. Protesters gathered on the highway next
to his land and tried to scare off the grouse. The duke’s action for
trespass succeeded. The court held that since the highway ran over the
duke’s land it gave him rights over it and the defendants were liable
because they used the highway improperly.
Keeping this in mind, Aman’s petition to sue Rahul and seek
compensation will fail as it was his own fault that he entered the property
of Rahul and suffered damages as a consequence.
In the case of Chindhu v. Vana, 1973
Trespasser cannot approach the Court against the lawful owner for grant
of injunction which is an equitable remedy, taking advantage of his
unlawful trespass or illegal possession.
This judgement hence won’t allow Aman to sue Rahul for damages.
Rahul can though seek for an injunction order to stop further
interference with his land.