|
| |
| Home >> General Public User >> Law Of Torts>> India>>Liability For Aniamls & Trespass To Land |
Liability For Aniamls & Trespass To Land |
x) Liability For Aniamls
Tortious liability for animals may be grouped under the following headings:
- Liability for dangerous animals (The Scienter Rule)
- Liability for cattle trespass
- Other liabilities
Liability for dangerous animals
English law has observed that mischievous animals must be kept secured by their controller from doing damage. Mischievous animals are categorised as ‘ferae naturae’ (animals dangerous by nature). In the words of Justice Devlin, “A person who keeps an animal with knowledge of its tendency to do harm is strictly liable for damage that it does if it escapes. He is under an absolute duty to confine or control it so that it shall not do injury to others.”
In order to make the defendant liable by any act done by an animal ‘mansuetae nature’ (animals harmless in nature) it has to be proved that the animal had a ferocious tendency, which is not usual to animals of that particular species, and the defendant also had the knowledge of such ferocity.
Liability for cattle trespass
The cause of action in case of cattle trespass arises when cattle (it may be cow, bull, sheep, horse, pig, donkey, goat, poultry) belonging to the defendant are either intentionally driven or stray into the plaintiff’s land. The owner of an animal is duty bound to take care that such animal does not stray into other person’s land and the owner is thus liable for any trespass committed by that animal. The liability for cattle trespass is strict and hence negligence on part of the owner is not required to be proved.
Other liabilities
Activities of animals can lead to other liabilities as well. The owner of an animal may invite legal responsibility for the tort of nuisance if he keeps the animal in such a manner that it unreasonably interferes with his neighbour’s enjoyment of his property. The occupier of premises may be liable if injury is caused to a legal entrant by the occupier's dog and liability may also arise in cases where the stench of animals creates nuisance for the plaintiff. A tort of negligence may arise in the absence of proper control of animals on the highway.
xi) Trespass To Land
A trespass to land is any interference with a person's rights in his land without lawful justification. An unlawful entry into some other’s property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property. The act of the trespasser may include the entering of the property without authorisation, occupying other person’s land, or placing objects and obstructions on the land. An act of trespass must be direct and intentional and without consent for an action to succeed. Trespass is actionable per se and hence no damage needs to be proven.
English jurists have described trespass as, “every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute”. It can thus be deduced that in order to constitute a tort of trespass, the use of force, unlawful intention or proof of actual damage is not necessary. Trespass is possible not only on the surface of the land but on underground or subsoil even.
Remedies for Trespass
- The aggrieved person has a right to use force to vacate the trespasser, provided such force is reasonable.
- If any person is dispossessed of his property, without his consent, he may recover such possession by filing a suit for ejectment.
- The aggrieved person may also claim damages for the loss, which he has suffered during the period of dispossession. Such claim for compensation is known as an action for mesne profits. The principle relief in such suits should include both prayer for ejectment and mesne profits or damages since these claims arise out of the same cause of action of dispossession
However, if the trespasser becomes a “settled possessor”, even the actual owner cannot evict him by the use of force. The Supreme Court in Rama Gowda v. M. Vardappa, (2004) 1 SCC 769, page 776 has set out the conditions for determining a settled possessor, which can be enumerated as follows: -
- The trespasser must be in actual possession of the property over a sufficiently long period
- The possession must be to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser and which contains an element of animuspossidendy. The nature of the possession of the trespasser would, however, be a matter to be decided on facts and circumstances of each case.
- The process of dispossession of the true owner by the trespasser must be complete and final and must be acquiesced by the owner sleeping over his rights.
- In cases of cultural lands if any crop had been grown by the trespasser then even the true owner has no right to destroy the crop grown by the trespasser and take forcible possession.
The above principle was also laid down in Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 518, page 527
|
|
|
