1. Unlawful interference with the possession of land without lawful justification amounts to TRESPASS.
2. Unreasonable interference by the defendant in another's domain is NUISANCE.
3. When a 'dangerous thing' is brought by the defendant, the defendant is strictly liable for torts committed by the thing.
Little Fundoo likes to do funny things and is a menace in his locality, Mr. Wilson hates him.
People know li'l Fundoo can prove to be very dangerous if left on his own. He breaks windows, ties dog's tails with ropes, steals fruits from neighbour's trees etc.
One day a large group in his locality along with his father plans for an outing to a picnic spot, and visit the newly renovated Galipore National Zoo.
After the picnic they visited the Zoo.. There was the long Giraffe, monkeys and various other newly bought creatures..
Fundoo was such a naughty fellow he disturbed all of the animals, the Giraffe ran away hearing him blow the trumpet, the monkeys became fidgety and started screeching loudly, he also disturbs a RBTiger..
All hell broke lose when he takes a stone chip and aims it at a sleeping brown bear and wakes it up..
The bear enraged by being disturbed in sleep wakes up and with it's powerful spring brings down the iron fence and attacks Fundoo, escapes and attacks three more people among the picnickers.
The representatives of the three injured, and Fundoo seek legal compensation and bring a suit against the Govt. zoo.
1) Who is going to be ultimately liable for the hospital expenses of the 4 injured?
2) Is it possible to frame the parents of Fundoo somehow?
3) Fundoo suffers injuries will Govt. compensate those too?
4) Who'll be responsible if the bear goes on a rampage kills a man and injure many other people?
Here the confusion regarding Q1 is:
The iron fence was reasonably strong and was approved earlier by Govt. authorities, the enraged bear shakes the fence violently and brings it down, due to utter vengeance towards human also injures the visitors, which normally bears don't.
Now a defence from the zoo authority:
The complaint brought against us by the plaintiff is purely baseless.
The Zoo authority of India earlier approved our fencing system after the Renovation. The bear was enraged by the misconduct of the injured.
And if at all we are liable the injured should also be liable as they have performed contributory negligence and misconducted later in the situation.
And we Galipore national Zoo are not liable for the damages to the miscreant and his friends.