Q: What are the essentials of trespass to goods ?

 Ans: Essentials of trespass to goods:

1. It is a wrong against possession.

2. Any person whose possession of goods is directly interfered with can bring this action.

But when owner has given up his possession i.e., by pledging the goods or giving them to another under hire and purchase agreement,  such right can not be exercised.

3. Trespass is a wrong against possession rather than ownership.  

There is a case of Armory Vs. Delamire, 1722 in which the sweeper boy found the jewellery and the sweeper handed over the jewellery to the Jeweller. Since the sweeper found the jewellery,  thus sweeper has the possession of the jewellery. The Jeweller denied to return the jewellery to sweeper.  The sweeper filed case that the Jeweller had made wrong against possession and the Jeweller was held liable for trespass to goods. 

4. Direct interference: There must be direct physical interference without lawful justification in trespass. 

For instance: If a person damages the goods of another person to defend himself or herself, he or she would not be held liable for trespass to goods. 


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: Elaborate the citation of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962) ?

Ans:  The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati and another (1962). Lokumal i.e. Defendant no. 1, a temporary employee of the State of Rajasthan was employed as a motor driver (on probation) of a government jeep car under the Collector of Udaipur. The car had been sent for repairs. On February 11, 1952, while driving the car back from the workshop after the repairs were done, defendant no. 1 knocked down one Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath by the side of the public road. Jagdishlal was severely injured and his skull and backbone were fractured. Three days later, he died in the hospital.  The court held that the state will be liable to pay compensation for the Tort of his employee.
Read more