1.

Define and distinguish between the concepts of Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine
Damnum ?

Both the maxims Damnum sine injuria and Injuria Sine damnum are split
into three parts:-
● Damnum / Damno means serious harm, loss or damage to property,
health etc.
● Injuria means a violation of the privilege given to the complainant by the
statute.
● Sine means without.
Such two maxims come under the category of qualified rights, and there is
no presumption of damages in cases of qualified rights, and violation of
these rights can only be enforced on the basis of damages.
Introduction
A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil mistake which causes a
claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the individual
for committing a tortious act. This can include deliberate infliction of
emotional distress, neglect, financial injury, accidents, privacy
infringement and many other [Link] law,a situation where the object
of a lawsuit is to obtain private legal relief such as damages, can be
contrasted with the criminal law that deals with state-punished criminal
offences. Tort law can also be compared with contract law, which also
includes a legal remedy upon violation of duty; but while the contractual
responsibility is one chosen by the parties as the duty in both tort and
abuse is enforced by the state.
Law of torts is said to be a series of situations in which the court provides
remedies for the legal harm done by one person to another by way of
damages.

There are three elements which must be proven before tort is committed
are as follows:
● The defendant must commit an act or omission.
● The act or omission will be in violation of the plaintiff's legal right.
● The defendant will commit certain misdeeds or omissions that give rise
to legal remedies.
There are 2 legal maxims that fall under this category:

● Damnum sine injuria

● Injuria Sine damnum
Maxims refers to the concepts and prepositions defined therein. It is the
general rules or standards or guidelines set out and that the general
public will obey. Maxims are very useful, because they can be simply and
correctly interpreted with the aid of this particular point of law and can
also be used for the proper settlement of cases. Maxims are used
commonly in different fields of law. As the law is a complex topic with
multiple definitions, rules and principles. Such combinations of specific
Latin and French words are therefore deemed appropriate for a much
clearer understanding.
DAMNUM SINE INJURIA
Damnum Sine Injuria is a term relating to injuries sustained by the
complainant but there is no infringement of a person's civil right. In such
cases, where there is no breach of a plaintiff's legal right but the plaintiff
is sustaining the injury or damage, the plaintiff can not bring an action
against the other for the same, as it is not lawfully enforceable, unless
there is some infringement of a legal right.

Damnum Sine Injuria, the word's literal sense refers to loss or harm with
respect to income, property or any physical loss without violating any
legal right. This can not be enforced in law even if the act has been
intentional and has been done to harm someone but without violating the
person's legal right.
Related case laws
[Link] of Bradford v/s Pickles ,[1895] AC 587
In this case Bradford Company supplied water from its well. The defendant
had adjacent land to the property of the company of which it was
[Link] wished to sell his estate. He addressed the Corporate
Mayor but failed to compromise. So the defendant dug well in his own
land by cutting off the underground supply of corporate water well .This
caused corporate loss to the plaintiff due to lack of adequate supply of
water to corporate people. So Plaintiff sued Defendant for malice
damages.
The court then held that the defendant is not liable because the
defendant's act is not wrongful as it has not violated the law or the
plaintiff's right. There is objective malice, ill will of digging well in his own
land is not a tort.
[Link] Grammar school case, 1410 (setting up rival school)
Y.B .11 [Link]
The Defendant was a teacher at the school of the plaintiff. Due to some
dispute Defendant left the school of the plaintiff and started his own
school in front of the school of the plaintiff, which caused him harm. As a
result of increased competition, the plaintiff must reduce their fees from
40 pence per scholar to 12 pence per quarter. This decrease in fees allows
the plaintiff to monetary loss.
The Court held that there was a financial loss to the plaintiff, but the
defendant had the right to start any legal business and have fair
competition. Therefore, the defendant had not infringed any legal right of
the plaintiff, so no action could be taken against the defendant. Therefore,
the defendant could not be held liable.
In situations where the legal right has been infringed, the court presumes
that damages will be paid but in situations where no legal right has been
infringed, the Damnum sine Injuria principle applies and no recourse is
accessible for the same. Therefore, it can rightly be said that an act that is
committed lawfully or legitimately, without fault, and in the exercise of a
legal right, any damage as comes to another is therefore harmless.
INJURIA SINE DAMNUM
Injuria sine damnum is a breach of a legal right without causing the
complainant any injury, loss or damage but legal right is infringed, the
person in whom the right is vested is entitled to bring a suit. Each person
has an absolute right to his property, to his person's rights, and this right
can be exercised in its own right to his freedom and infringement. A
person who has been infringed on the legal right has a cause of action
such that even a breach of any legal right knowingly brings the cause of
the [Link] law also gives the freedom that if a person is merely
threatened with infringing a legal right even without completing the
injury, the person whose right has been threatened can bring a claim
under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act under Declaration and
Injunction.

Injuria Sine Damno is a legal term , meaning injury or loss or harm so

done to the claimant without any actual injury or damage. It is a Latin
term where 'Injuria' refers to injury 'Sine' means without and 'Damno'
refers to property or any physical loss, thus the term refers to 'injury
sustained without actual loss. Here, in this case, the complainant does not
have to prove the damages he has suffered so much, he only has to prove
that he has suffered some legal damage, that is the action brought in such
a way that it is in itself actionable. As, for example, if A roams around B's
house without any excuse then, in that case, there is a violation of B's
legal right and this rule is also true and If a person is illegally detained
against his will, the detention will have a claim for substantial damages
for wrongful imprisonment even if no significant injury has been suffered.
Related case laws
[Link] v. White, (1703) 2 LR 938
In this case, Plaintiff was a valid voter, his name was on the voting list but
the defendant; the election incharge refused to give his legitimate vote.
So Plaintiff sued the defendant for compensation even though in monetary
terms no harm was incurred.
The Court ruled that the defendant is liable to pay compensation because
he infringed the plaintiff's legitimate right to vote. Since the plaintiff
suffered no real loss in terms of income, or the candidate who was
interested in the plaintiff was elected, but the defendant infringed his
legal right and was therefore liable to pay compensation.

[Link] v/s Williams,(1830) 1 B & Ad 415

(Bank refusing customers cheque)
In this situation, the plaintiff was an account holder who had money in his
[Link] day he went to withdraw money via Self Check. While his
account contained ample money but the Defendant; banker declined to
pay the plaintiff for no cause. And then the plaintiff filed a complaint
seeking damages against the defendant;banker.
The court held that while the claimant suffered no monetary damage but
his legal right was [Link] the defendant is liable as per the principle
of Injuria Sine damnum.
❖ In general, therefore, the principle Injuria Sine Damno applies to the
remedies given in the form of damages or compensation in breach of any
legal right, so that if the legal right is infringed, the case will be brought
even though there is no harm to another. In other words, it is a violation of
a right in which no damage is sustained but a cause of action is
established.
Differences between Damnum sine injuria and Injuria Sine
damnum
[Link] sine Injuria applies to the damages sustained by the defendant
but the legal rights are not violated because there is no breach whereas
Injuria Sine damnum is the civil damage to the plaintiff, without harm to
the actual injury
2Damnum sine Injuria is the damages that have been sustained without
violating any legal right thereby having no cause for action whereas
Injuria Sine damnum is a breach of a legal right in which the complainant
often establishes an actionable claim, even though no harm has been
incurred.
[Link] the cases of Damnum sine Injuria court awards no compensation
whereas in the cases of Injuria Sine damnum compensation is awarded by
the court.
[Link] sine Injuria is for the moral wrongs , which in the eyes of the
law have no practice whereas Injuria Sine damnum is for the legal errors
that can be enforced if the lawful right of the citizen has been violated.
[Link] the cases of Damnum sine Injuria, the complainant suffers a loss but
no legal injury has been sustained whereas in the cases of Injuria Sine
damnum the plaintiff has suffered legal injury in this regard, no matter
whether they have suffered any loss or not.
[Link] Damnum sine Injuria ,damages without harm can not be operated
upon whereas inInjuria Sine damnum it is actionable if a civil right is
infringed.
Conclusion
Rule of Torts is a branch that resembles other laws but in many ways it is
distinct from them. While there may be differences of opinion among the
jurist about tort liability, the law was created. The breach of private right
without any real loss or harm sustained in the case of injuria sine damno.
Every person has an absolute right to his life , property and rights, but
when there is neither damno nor injuries, no action can be taken. In India,
if legal right is infringed, there is no need to show any legal damage.
Offenses such as libel, attack, battery, etc., are pure misconduct, without
proof of actionable harm. So if there is no breach of the legal right, any
relief will be given even though there was a significant loss.
The main purpose of the Damnum Sine Injuria maxim is that no ground of
action or cause of action exists for a person behaving within reasonable
limits, even if the other person is suffering damages on that account,
while the main goal of the Injuria Sine damnum maxim is that if a person's
legal right is violated, a cause of action arises and the person whose legal
right is infringed,In such cases a legitimate right that is distinct from
absolute rights has been violated.

2. Define Torts. Also discuss its essential features.

The term “tort” derives from the Latin term “tortum,” meaning twisted or crooked. Salmond
defines a tort as a civil wrongdoing that can be remedied through a common law action
seeking unliquidated damages. It is distinct from exclusive breaches of contract, breach of
trust, or other equitable obligations.

What are the Essential Elements of Tort?

There are four essential elements of tort for a tort to exist. They are:
Existence of a Duty to Exercise Care
The law of torts imposes an obligation on every individual to
exercise a reasonable level of care when engaging in activities that
could potentially cause harm to others. To pursue a legal case, it is
necessary to establish that the tortfeasor (the person responsible for
the tort) owed a duty of care to the injured party and that this duty
was breached. The duty of care is imposed by law and does not
require a direct relationship between the tortfeasor and the injured
party.
Wrongful Commission or Omission of an Act
For an act to be recognised as wrongful, it must be defined as such
by law. Violating a legal provision renders an act unlawful. It is
important to note that a moral wrong does not necessarily equate to
a legal wrong. Merely being morally wrong is insufficient to qualify
as legal wrongdoing. An act is considered unlawful only if it
contravenes the law, regardless of its moral implications.
Furthermore, wrongdoing must result in actual harm or legal injury
to another person. The following cases exemplify this requirement:
Glasgow Corporation v. Taylor (1992)
In this case, a corporation failed to erect proper fencing to keep
children away from a poisonous tree. As a result, a child plucked and
consumed fruits from the poisonous tree and died. The corporation
could be held liable for this omission.
General Cleaning Corporation Ltd v. Christmas (1953)
In this case, an employer failed to provide a safety belt for a safe
system of work, resulting in consequences arising from this
omission.
Actual Harm or Legal Harm
For a tort claim to arise and for the tortfeasor to be held liable, the
claimant must have suffered actual pain or loss as a result of the
wrongdoing, or there must have been a violation of their legal rights,
with or without resulting damage.
Two maxims, injuria sine damno and damnum sine injuria,
encompass the various categories of harm and/or injury covered by
this crucial element of a tort.
Injuria Sine Damno
The maxim “injuria sine damno” describes an injury without
damage, which is actionable under tort law. It occurs when a person
experiences a legal injury without actual loss, meaning their legal
right has been infringed by another individual. It signifies a violation
of an absolute right without the need for actual harm.
An illustrative example of this maxim is the landmark case of Ashby
v. White (1703) 92 ER 126, where Mr. Ashby, the plaintiff, was
prevented from voting by Mr. White, the constable. This rule is
based on the ancient maxim “Ubi jus ibi remedium,” meaning
“where there is a right, there will be a remedy.”
The plaintiff was a qualified voter in a parliamentary election. The
defendant, a returning officer, wrongfully refused to accept the
plaintiff’s vote. Although the plaintiff suffered no damage since the
candidate he wished to vote for had already won the election, the
defendants were still held liable. It was concluded that damage is
not limited to pecuniary loss, as injury implies damage. Therefore,
when a person’s rights are hindered, they are entitled to remedies.
In another case from India, Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir, the plaintiff, who was a member of parliament (MP), was
denied entry into the premises of the Assembly election by a police
constable, thereby infringing upon his legal rights.
Damnum Sine Injuria
This maxim is the opposite of the previous one. It refers to damage
without injury. In this case, the party experiences actual physical or
moral loss, but there is no infringement of their legal rights. It refers
to an actual and substantial loss suffered by a party without any
violation of their legal rights. In such instances, the plaintiff has no
cause of action since no legal rights have been transgressed.
An example of damnum sine injuria is the case of Gloucester
Grammar School, where the defendant established a school in the
same neighbourhood as the plaintiff’s school and even lowered the
fees. This was not considered a tort case because the plaintiff
suffered only a financial loss, and none of their legal rights were
breached.
Legal Remedy
The law of torts provides specific legal remedies to injured parties
when their rights are violated. These remedies can include monetary
compensation, restitution of specific property, and court-ordered
injunctions.
The Court assesses various factors of liability by applying tests such
as directness and foreseeability to determine the extent of the
damage suffered and whether it is too remote. Only after evaluating
these factors will the Court provide relief to the claimant.

Conclusion
A tort defines a civil wrong, consisting of four essential elements:
duty, wrongful act, injury, and remedy. To pursue damages for a
tort, all four essential of torts must be proven. If any of these
elements is missing, the tort cannot be established, and damages
cannot be awarded.
 3. What are the salient features of the Public Liability Insurance Act ?

The Public Liability Insurance Act of 1991 was enacted to protect the public and businesses
by holding them accountable for any harm caused due to their activities. The act aims to
ensure that victims receive compensation promptly and efficiently. Here are some important
aspects of the act:
 Purpose
The act's main objective is to provide for damages to victims of accidents that occur
while handling hazardous substances.
 Application
The act applies to all owners associated with the production or handling of hazardous chemicals.


 Insurance
Owners must take out insurance policies within one year of starting a business that handles hazardous
substances. The insurance policy must be renewed from time to time.
 Compensation claims

The act establishes a framework for making compensation claims more accessible and efficient.
 Collector's role
The collector is responsible for verifying and publicizing the event, and inviting applications from
the public.
 Time limit for claims
The public must make a claim within five years of the accident.
The act was enacted in response to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, which killed more than 3,000 people and
injured many

4. Define and discuss the essential features of Trespass ?

In the contemporary times, each individual wishes to protect his or

her body and the property from the external interference as well as
from the malafide intention to harm it. Several instances have been
there where the wrongful intervention of an individual in other’s
property and body leads to damage publically or privately. Trespass
is a common term to protect common man from such injury.
Intentional wrongful act done directly with a view to harm the other
person or his or her property is called as trespass. Intentional
wrongful act here implies that the act should be committed
voluntarily. In other words, intention is a necessary element of
trespass.
Trespass can be categorised into two types:
1. Trespass to person
2. Trespass to property and goods

Trespass to person
It is an unreasonable interference, with malafide intentions, with an
individual’s body which is committed either by causing physical
harm or by the apprehension of use of force. It is further divided into
assault, battery and false imprisonment.
Assault
Wrongful apprehension of fear in the mind of other person causing
him to suffer harm is known as assault. No physical harm is needed
to be established to prove assault. In the case of R v. S. George[1], a
person took out the gun pretending it to be loaded and pointed out
to the other person. The other person, in the apprehension of fear,
suffered shock. The person was held liable. It did not matter whether
the gun was loaded or unloaded. But the foreseeability of the person
of apprehension of fear did matter. In the same case if the gun
pointed the back and the person was not aware of it, then this act
would not constitute assault.
Similarly in the case of R v. Constanza[2], the defendant mailed
eight hundred letters to the plaintiff. Along with this, the person also
wrote offensive words on the main door of the plaintiff which made
her suffer clinical depression. The defendant was held liable for the
assault and was penalised as well.
Battery
When force is used against a person in a manner that it causes a
physical injury to the person, then the use of such force is termed as
battery. The force so used should be intentional and without lawful
justification. In other words, unintentional or lawful use of force
cannot be termed as battery. In the case of Stanley v. Powell[3],
both the plaintiff and the defendant were from the shooting party.
The defendant fired his gun at a pheasant. However the bullet from
his gun reverted back after striking a tree and hit the plaintiff
accidentally which wounded the plaintiff. Defendant was not held
liable for the tort of battery because the act of the defendant was
not intentionally done.

Trespass to Property or Goods

Wrongful intervention of one over the property or goods belonging
to another without any lawful justification is called as trespass to
land or trespass to goods respectively. This interference should be of
direct and physical nature. Trespass to property is looked with the
purview of possession rather than ownership of the goods or the
property. In other words, a person who is having the possession of
the goods or the property can bring a suit for trespass against the
lawful owner if such owner cannot provide lawful justification for
such intervention.
In the case of Madhav Vithal Kudwa v. Madhavdas Vallabhdas[13],
the tenant lived on the first floor of a multi-storeyed building. The
plaintiff, being the landlord, alleged that the act of defendant
parking his car in the compound of his building amounted to
trespass. He asked for injunction from the court to restrain
defendant from such parking. However the court held that parking of
vehicle cannot amount to trespass as it was a multi-storeyed
building.
In the case of Basely v. Clarkson[14], the defendant cut the grass on
his land and mistakenly he crossed the boundary and did same on
the land of the neighbour. In the instant case the defendant’s plea of
mistake in claiming trespass to land was rejected. It is because his
act was not unintentional though he committed a mistake regarding
the presence of the boundary. However it would not amount to
trespass if the entry proved to be involuntary. In the case of Smith v.
Stone[15], the person was thrown into the land of the plaintiff. Since
his entry was not intentional therefore his act did not amount to
trespass.
It is a presumption in holding the possession rights of a land that the
person who possesses a piece of land possesses the earth below it
and the sky above it. Thus any entry beneath the surface at any
depth would be actionable trespass.
Trespass can be committed through air, land, animals etc.

5. Define and discuss about the Tort of Nuisance ?

The term “Nuisance” is derived from the French word “nuire” which
is further derived from the Latin word “nocere” which means “to
cause hurt or to annoy.” If we consider the meaning of the concept
of nuisance in common parlance it is nothing, but an inconvenience
to people or others. But in law, this concept has little restrictive
meaning as law does not consider “mere inconvenience” as an
offense of nuisance. Various jurists have defined this concept which
helps us to understand the legal perspective of it.
According to Blackstone nuisance is something that “worketh hurt,
inconvenience or damage[1].” The description given by him simply
provides us the basic meaning of the concept.
Salmond defined it in a more extensible manner. According to him
“the wrong of nuisance consists in causing or allowing without lawful
justification the escape of any deleterious thing from his land or
from elsewhere into land in possession of the plaintiff, e.g. water,
smoke, fumes, gas, noise, heat, vibration, electricity, disease,
germs, animals.[2]”
Stephen defined nuisance to be “anything done to the hurt or
annoyance of the lands tenements of another, and not amounting to
trespass.[3]”
Thus from above all definitions, we can conclude that nuisance is an
injury or an unlawful interference to the use or enjoyment, or some
right of a person in possession of a property. It is an act of unlawful,
unreasonable or unwarranted annoyance to the plaintiff’s use or
right over the land.
Types of Nuisance
Nuisance can be classified into two kinds:
1. Public Nuisance,
2. Private Nuisance
Public Nuisance
Section 3(48) of the General clauses Act, 1897 defines a public
nuisance as it is defined in the Indian penal code (IPC). So we need
to refer IPC for its definition. IPC defines it under section 268 where
it means an act or omission which is illegal and results in common
injury, danger, or annoyance to the people who dwell or occupy the
property and is also extended to include people who are in the
vicinity. Such annoyance must infringe the certain rights of those
people.
Thus public nuisance can include all the acts which affect general
public or a large section of the community. Some of its examples
are- where a person operates a trade which causes loud noise,[4]
keeping inflammable substances in large quantity,[5] etc.
In the case of Ram Raj Singh v. Babulal[6] where the defendants
installed a brick grinding machine adjacent to the plaintiff’s land
who is medical practitioner, it was held that the dust from the
machine causes public nuisance as it affects all the patients or
visitors too.

In certain circumstances, an individual can have a private right to

the action in case of a public nuisance if he can prove following-
 He must show a personal injury i.e. beyond what is suffered by
general public.
 Such injury must be appeared to be of a substantial character.
 Such injury must be direct in nature.
Though in India under Section 91 of the Civil Procedural Code (CPC)
allows a civil action in case of a public nuisance without any proof of
special damage. Such suit can be instituted by the Advocate General
or by two or more persons with the leave of the court.
Private Nuisance
In contrast to public nuisance, the concept of private nuisance
involves injury to a particular individual and not to public at large. In
such cases, the remedy of civil action or injunction or both is
available to such individuals. The remedy of indictment doesn’t exist
in case of private nuisance.
The law of private nuisance protects the interest of the occupier of
land. It seeks to maintain a position where an individual can exercise
his right to enjoy his property while not causing inconvenience to his
neighbors.
Elements of Private Nuisance
There must be an unlawful or unreasonable interference.
An act of nuisance can be proved only in the situation where
someone unlawfully or without any cause which is reasonable in
nature interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of plaintiffs in his
property. Thus the cases where someone under legal authority ends
up causing the offence of nuisance while carrying on the authorized
work, he would not be held liable.
Such unlawful interference must be with the enjoyment or
use of the land or some right or in connection with the land.
Every person has a right so that he can peacefully enjoy his
property. This law is in place to protect such rights only. In the case
of Datta Mal Chiranji Lal v. Lodh Prasad[7] where the plaintiff
was not able to enjoy peacefully in his house due to the excessive
noise produced by the electric mill installed by the defendants, it
was held that the plaintiff has a right to the action.

There must be some damage suffered by the plaintiff.

The damage here can be to the property or the plaintiff in the form
of physical discomfort. In the cases where damage is done to the
property, any sensible injury would be enough to support an action.
In the case of St. Helen Smelting Co. v. Tipping[8] where the
fumes from the defendant’s manufacturing industry damage the
trees and shrubs present in plaintiff’s land, it was held to be
sufficient amount of damage to the property.
In Dilware v. Westminister City Council,[9] the roots of the
respondent’s tree caused a crack to the neighbor’s building. The
neighbor in the present case was allowed to claim compensation for
the damage caused to his property.
Now when we come to the case where damage is in the form of
physical discomfort, the following two conditions must be fulfilled-
 a. There must be material interference with the ordinary
comfort of human existence.
 b. Such interference is caused by an activity that is in excess
of ordinary use or enjoyment of land.
Remedies for Nuisance
The following remedies are available for nuisance-
Injunctions
It is one of the most important remedy available in the cases of
nuisance, which is discretionary in nature. Being a discretionary
remedy it is upon the court to exercise its discretion whether to
grant such or not, though court must always act judicially while
deciding so.
In the case of Miller v. Jackson[10] plaintiff constructed his house
near the cricket playground. When he complained about the
nuisance from a cricket ball, the court refused to give him the
remedy of an injunction because firstly he must have known about
the existence of such ground, and secondly, the court considered
the interest of the entire village by having a ground to play.
The court can issue a temporary injunction that is interim in nature.
Such a temporary injunction can either be confirmed or reversed.
The cases where it is confirmed, it becomes a permanent injunction.
Damages
Damages are monetary compensation given to the plaintiff. It could
be nominal damages (which is simply given to recognize the harm
suffered by the plaintiff) or statutory damages (which is given as per
a statutory law) or exemplary damages (which is given to set an
example for everyone so that such is not repeated in future).
Abatement
This is a self-help remedy, where the injured person doesn’t take a
legal course to seek a remedy. This remedy is usually not advisable
as even courts do not favor it. One such example of this kind of
remedy is where the plaintiff himself cuts the branches of the tree of
the defendant which causes him a nuisance.
Defenses to Nuisance
Following are the valid defenses available for the act of nuisance-
Prescriptive right to commit nuisance
This concept is embodied in section 26 of the Limitation Act and
Section 15 of the Easement Act, which is that a title can be acquired
by use and time because of continuous possession of the property.
This defense can be avail in case of nuisance when defendant can
show a peaceful open enjoyment of property as an easement for 20
years.

To establish a right by prescription following conditions must be

fulfilled-
a. Enjoyment or use
b. Identity of the thing which is enjoyed.
c. Such enjoyment must be adverse to the right of some person
In the case of Elliotson v. Feetham,[11] the court approved the
prescriptive right to a noisome trade when the defendants were able
to prove 20 years of its existence.
In Sturges v. Bridgman[12], defendants were operating certain
heavy machines for more than 20 years in their place. Plaintiff who
was a medical practitioner constructed a consulting room adjacent
to defendant’s house. In the present case, the court doesn’t allowed
defendant to claim an easement right as the period of 20 years can
be counted from the day plaintiff constructed such room.

When certain power is conferred by statutory law and such is

exercised with due care and skillfully without exceeding the
conferred limit, the defendant can claim a defense against offence
of nuisance. In the case, of Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rly[13] where the
defendants were having the statutory authority to run a locomotive
engine on their railway, it was held that they cannot be held liable
for the fire caused by the sparks of such engine.
Act of God
Defendants can claim a defense of “act of God” as those are beyond
human power or contemplation and are caused by a superior natural
force. In Nicholas v. Marsland[14] where an unprecedented
rainfall caused bursting of the embankments of the lake, it was held
plaintiff cannot be made liable to the flood caused by such lakes. As
such was an act of god which was unexpected and beyond human
control.
Consent of plaintiff
This is basically a defense of ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ where the
plaintiff has either explicitly or impliedly consented for such an act
of nuisance. In Kiddle v. City business properties[15] the
plaintiff was a tenant in the defendant’s house where he was
occupying the ground floor of the house. The gutter of the landlord’s
house was blocked even at the time when plaintiff was taking the
house on rent. Thus defendant was here allowed to claim this
defense when damage was caused to plaintiff’s stock as he
consented for such.
Necessity
When the offense of nuisance is committed in order to prevent a
threat or harm, the defendant can claim the defense of necessity.

Trifles
The latin maxim “De minimis non curat lex” means that law does
not concern itself with matters that are insignificant and/or
immaterial. Thus no remedy is available to the plaintiff in a matter
which is immaterial in nature. For example, where the shadow of the
defendant’s tree falls on the plaintiff’s land, he cannot claim remedy
against offense of the nuisance.
Conclusion
From the above all discussion one thing gets very clear that the law
of nuisance is an uncodified one. It has developed by the Judiciary
through various case laws. This law plays an important role for
general peace as it ensures that one person’s right to do whatever
they pleases in his property not infringes upon other person’s right
to enjoy his property.

6. Define and distinguish between Strict & Absolute Liability ?

Liability is a crucial concept in legal systems that establishes responsibility for harm
or damage caused. In legal contexts, strict liability and absolute liability are two
important doctrines used to determine liability in certain situations. In this article, we
will explore the difference between strict liability and absolute liability, their
definitions, key elements, and their implications in legal proceedings.

Criteria Strict Liability Absolute Liability

Definition Imposes legal responsibility on a Imposes legal responsibility on a party for
party for damages caused, regardless damages caused, regardless of fault or
of fault or negligence negligence, but with certain exceptions
Fault Does not require proof of fault or Does not require proof of fault or negligence
Requirement negligence
Scope of Applies to certain inherently Applies to highly hazardous activities or
Liability dangerous activities or products substances that have the potential to cause
significant harm
Burden of The claimant must prove that the The claimant must prove that the harm was
Proof harm was caused by the defendant's caused by the defendant's actions or the
actions or the defendant's liability- defendant's liability-triggering activity or
triggering activity or product product
Defenses Defenses may include proving that Defenses may include proving that the
the claimant contributed to the claimant contributed to the harm, assumption
 harm, assumption of risk, or act of a of risk, or act of a third party
third party
Exceptions Strict liability can be mitigated or Absolute liability is generally not subject to
eliminated by certain defenses or exceptions, except in some limited
exceptions circumstances
Application Typically applied in product liability Applied in cases involving activities or
cases, hazardous activities (such as substances posing an exceptionally high risk
keeping dangerous animals), and of harm, such as handling hazardous
certain statutory offenses chemicals or engaging in inherently
dangerous activities
Legal The liable party may be required to The liable party may be required to
Consequences compensate the claimant for compensate the claimant for damages caused
damages caused
Examples Product liability for defective goods, Liability for transporting hazardous materials,
liability for keeping dangerous liability for storing explosives
animals