Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help
Homework answers / question archive / A)What forms can trespass to land take and how does trespass differ from the tort of nuisance? (7
A)What forms can trespass to land take and how does trespass differ from the tort of nuisance? (7.5 marks) B) Discuss the defence available for the tort of trespass to land. (7.5 marks) Q2) Write brief and clear notes explaining each of the following: a) Volenti non fit injuria (5 marks] b) Re ipsa loquitor (5 marks) c) Negligence [5 marks] d) Neighbour test [5 marks]
q1]
a]
Criminal trespass involves being on someone else’s property without permission.
While state laws define criminal trespassing somewhat differently, the typical elements of the crime are:
Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem (or maiming).
The word nuisance has been derived from the French word ‘nuire’ which means, to hurt or to annoy. Ordinarily, nuisance means disturbances. According to Winfield, nuisance is incapable of exact definition. But for the purpose of the law of tort, it may be described as unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection with it.
b]
Defence available for trespasssing-
There are several defenses to trespass to land; license, justification by law, necessity and jus tertii. License is express or implied permission, given by the possessor of land, to be on that land.
q2]
a]
The maxim ‘Volenti non fit injuria means defence of consent. In the law of torts, if any person commits any wrongful act which causes injury to another person, he is held liable and has to pay damages or provide some other remedies.
In simple words, the plaintiff voluntarily agrees to suffer harm, he is not allowed to make any complaint about that and his consent serves as a good defence.
b]
n tort law, a principle that allows plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof with what is, in effect, circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff can create a rebuttable presumption of negligence by the defendant by proving that the harm would not ordinarily have occurred without negligence, that the object that caused the harm was under the defendant’s control, and that there are no other plausible explanations.
c]
Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances.