AILET 2019 BA LLB Question Paper with answer key for online practice
© examsiri.com
Question : 83 of 150
Marks:
+1,
-0
Legal Principles :
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief If it escapes, must keep It in at his peril, and, If he does not do so, Is prlma facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary Interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
Facts : Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above the Dr. Hemant’s clinic. The Karan was found liable for emitting from their clinic obnoxious fumes which escaped downwards into Hemant’s clinic.
Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable ?
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief If it escapes, must keep It in at his peril, and, If he does not do so, Is prlma facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary Interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
Facts : Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above the Dr. Hemant’s clinic. The Karan was found liable for emitting from their clinic obnoxious fumes which escaped downwards into Hemant’s clinic.
Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable ?
Go to Question: