Q: Is remoteness of damage considered in nervous shock?

Ans: If there is psychiatric damage in nervous shock, it is also a contravention of right to health which is a part of right to life under Article 21 of Indian Constitution. 

The remoteness of damage will be considered here but only one test will be performed here i.e., test of reasonable foresight.  

The test of directness will not be considered here and test of reasonable foresight will be considered here and it was to be found how much proximity is in the psychiatric damage of the tort.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Difference between Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria ?

Ans: Tort in Injuria Sine Damno and Damnum Sine Injuria. Injury means the legal right has been violated.  In Injuria Sine Damno, there is an injury without damage.  Here, the legal right has been violated  but there is no damage and the essential condition in Tort is that the legal right must be violated. Thus, Injuria Sine Damno is to be considered in Tort.  Damnum Sine Injuria means there are damages but there is no injury. Here, there are damages but the legal right has not violated. The essential condition in tort is that the legal right must be violated but here there is no violation of legal right. Hence, Damnum Sine Injuria is not considered in tort.
Read more

Q: What is Re Polemis Case in tort of remoteness of damage?

Ans: In Re Polemis case, court rejected test of reasonable foresight and applied test of directness of tort of remoteness of damage.  Re Polemis Case The defendant hired (chartered) a ship. He loaded ship with tin of benzene and petrol. Due to leakage of the tins some petrol collected on the hold of ship. Due to negligence of defendant servant, a plank fell on the hold and spark caused fire in the whole ship. Ship was burnt totally. Here defendant was held liable although he cannot reasonable foresee. Test of directness was applied.
Read more

Q: What are the differences between tresspass and nuisance?

Ans: Trespass,  is the direct physical interference with the plaintiff’s possession of the property through some material or tangible object whereas, in the case of a nuisance, it is an injury to some right of the possession of the property but not the possession itself. Trespass is actionable per se (actions which do not require allegations or proof), whereas, in the case of a nuisance, only the proof of actual damage to the property is required and is per se actionable.  Simply entering on another individual’s property without the owner’s consent and without causing him any injury would be trespass whereas if there is an injury to the property of another or any interference with his enjoyment of the property, then it will amount to a nuisance. It is to be noted that if the interference with the use of the property is direct, then the wrong is trespass whereas if the interference with the use or enjoyment of the property is consequential then it will amount to a nuisance. Exa...
Read more