Rylands V. Fletcher (1868)

It would be ‘fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty’ on Jenifer but, may open floodgates to similar claims. It can be concluded; a duty is established. Secondly, there must be a breach of duty, this is objectively assessed on the balance of probabilities. Firstly, in law how should the defendant have behaved in the circumstances? Secondly, in fact how did the defendant behave, and did there conduct fall below the reasonable standard of care

Private nuisance likewise is a tort which manages question between contiguous landowners. It includes drawing a harmony between the privilege of one individual to utilize their property in whatever way they wish and the privilege of their neighbor not to be meddled with. It is unlawful impedance with a man's utilization or pleasure in area, or some directly over, or regarding it. A nuisance which comprises of impedance with a privilege in area is managed in area law under the heading of bondages. In spite of the fact that a man who has an enthusiasm for area can do whatever he wishes on his property, his exercises however should not bring about disadvantage or harm to someone else who comparably as an enthusiasm over his territory.

In “The Moral Logic of Survivor Guilt” by Nancy Sherman, one has done no wrong, but still has guilt, even in situations that are unexpected, as this happens way too much, and that those who have done wrongdoing should be feeling guilty. She states, “We often take responsibility in a way that goes beyond what we can reasonably be held responsible for. And we feel the guilt that comes with that sense of responsibility. Nietzsche is the modern philosopher who well understood this phenomenon: “Das schlechte Gewissen,” (literally, “bad conscience”)-his term for the consciousness of guilt where one has done no wrong, doesn’t grow in the soil where we would most expect it, he argued, such as in prisons where there are actually “guilty” parties who should feel remorse for wrongdoing”(Sherman 154). Illustrating, this proves that we take the responsibility for actions that we did not do, and should not feel any remorse, but that the people who have done wrongdoing, should have this feeling of guilt.

The Wednesbury test was termed as retrogressive and the court urged that there were many degrees of unreasonableness the Wednesbury principle could only dealt with the more extremist of these degrees. A more wholistic test was needed and the proportionality test was reiterated again in this context. Finally in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department , the court held that in case of rights protected under the ECHR , the appropriate standard was provided by the proportionality test. It has been opined by academics that after this latest case, the amplitude of usage of the proportionality test can only

1.NUISANCE AS A TORT Nuisance means an unlawful interference with a €person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.Nuisance is an injury done to the right of a person in possession of property to uninterrupted enjoyment of it and results from an unwarranted use by another person of his own property.The interference done in nuisance is not direct but consequential.It is expressed by saying that nuisance is a breach of the duty marked by the latin maxim, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, which means ‘one must use his property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another.The person who possesses the property may put his own property to any reasonable and lawful use, so long as he does not thereby disrobe the adjoining landowner of any right of enjoyment of his property which is recognized and protected by law’. 2.TYPES OF NUISANCE Public Nuisance: It is a crime. Public nuisance is the interference with the right of the public in general and is a punishable offense. Obstructing a public path by digging a hole for sewage construction of your house are examples of public nuisance.To avoid multiple suits arising out of a single act, the law makes public nuisance an offence under criminal law.However there are some exception to this.in certain cases, where the plaintiff can suffers some special damage, apart from what is suffered by the public in general, then an action for damage shall lie in case of public nuisance as well, as it

The first one is the intent of the lawmakers through which it is indicated that the purpose was to cover all acts of torture in any form and if the fountainhead of command is not covered under the ambit of the Convention then its purpose is ultimately defeated . The Court, in other words, says that it is unfair to hold an officer of lower rank liable for an offense if the person in charge is allowed freedom to continue ordering such acts. Thus, Pinochet is an officer under the meaning of the Convention . The second technique is a purposeful mode of interpretation through which the Court reads the provisions keeping in mind the ultimate purpose of the Convention. The Court holds that immunity is a concept is granted ratione personae and on the expiration of office, this becomes rationemateriae.

In a wider meaning, breach of contract is the failure to comply or be able to perform in whole or part whatever is in the contract without any legal reason or excuse. It is not subject to imprisonment but someone who is proven committed breach of contract would surely be liable for the damages. Breach of Contract can surely affect individuals and even business organizations. Here the four different types of breaches: • Material breach – this is the

False imprisonment is an act punishable under criminal law as well as under tort law. Under tort law, it is classified as an intentional tort as trespass to a person.False Imprisonment has been defined as the total restraint of the liberty of a person. The word ‘false’ means ‘erroneous’ or ‘wrong’. It is a tort of strict liability and the plaintiff has not to prove fault on part of the defendant. It safeguards the right to freedom of a person so that they may be able to move without restraint.

Generally, the major elements of trespass “include an unlawful intrusion upon a property, with intention, force and injury to an owner. A trespass can become intentional if the acts leading to the invasion were done with knowledge that a trespass would result.” There are three main forms of trespass to a person which include assault, battery and false imprisonment. Besides, it is advantageous to look into what is intention in order to argue for the question. Intent can be defined as “a mental attitude resulted from an action of a person, and hence it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. It is not necessary that any illegal or wrongful means be used to carry out the negative result, provided the wrongful conduct was intentional and was not accompanied by justifications and excuses.” Firstly, “tort of

It primarily arises where the accused has taken an unjustifiable risk with a little amount of intent behind the consequence of the action. Recklessness can fall under two categories which are objective and subjective recklessness which I shall discuss in more detail later in my essay. Recklessness is an alternative fault for offences including manslaughter, criminal damage and offences against the person. (4) Subjective recklessness is when the accused is aware of the risk but decides to take it anyway such as in R V Cunningham. (6) Objective recklessness is where the accused did not allude to the possibility that there was a risk which would have been obvious to the reasonable