Q: What is trespass in tort ?

Ans: Trespass means to enter someone's land or property without the permission of that person.

In Trespass,  there will be a direct invasion or interference with another person's property which infringes the rights of another person.

There are two kinds of trespass based on legal maxims:

1. There is a legal maxim 'Trespass quare olasum fregit' which means the entry on another person’s land. Here the entry on another person's land is without his permission.

2. There is another legal maxim ' Trespass de bonis asportatis' which means the taking away of another person’s goods' . Here , the taking away of another person’s goods is also without the permission of that person. 

If the injury is not inflicted intentionally but negligently, the only cause of action is negligence and not trespass and thus the punishment can not be inflicted in accordance with tort of tresspass and the punishment will be inflicted as per the provisions of  tort of negligence.  Thus only "intended invasions" come under trespass [Letang v Cooper (1965)1 QB 232]. In that case, the plaintiff while sunbathing was run over by a car driven negligently by the defendant causing injury to her legs. An action for trespass was not allowed by the court because the defendant ran over the plaintiff  by car accidentally by negligence and tresspass is by intention and not by negligence.  

The three chief forms of Intentional Trespass are: Assault, Battery and False Imprisonment. There are two important rules of trespass: (i) That it is for the defendant to plead and prove justification and not for the plaintiff to show that the defendant's conduct was unreasonable and the intention of harm should be clear in trespass; and (ii) that damage is not an essential element in tresspass and need not be proved by the plaintiff.

The importance of trespass lies in that it can be used for the protection of one's liberty and vindication of constitutional rights.

The vindication of constitutional rights in  tresspass is that the trespass will violate the right to personal liberty.

Since the Article 21 is fundamental right , so there is a vindication of fundamental rights in tort of tresspass by Article 21 of constitution. 

 Tespass trips up the zealous bureaucrat, the eager policeman and the officious citizen.

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