COPE VS. SHARPE 

Advertisements

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Defendant has committed certain acts in order to prevent the harm which was caused in the Plaintiff property due to fire. Here the defendant took the precautions to prevent the spread of fire at that time fire was so imminent danger and consequence were at peak . However by effective precaution took by defendant , the fire has not caused any loss to the plaintiff premises. But the Plaintiff sues the defendant for encroaching into his property as a trespasser .

ISSUES

Whether the Defendant will be liable for trespass ?

ARGUMENTS  

 The Plaintiff argued that the defendant has encroached in this premises hence liable for the trespass and so plaintiff demands compensation for the loss , but on the other hand defendant took the defence of necessity as act done by him to prevent the harm which can be caused by so imminent and dangerous fire .

JUDGEMENT

The court while considering the defence of necessity in consonance with statutory defence under law of torts , the Defendant was not made liable for the act of trespass as it was done when there was huge danger caused by unforeseen fire caused in plaintiff premises , the act of trespass was not intentional as it was made to prevent the loss . hence he will not be made liable even though there was no loss caused by the fire .

 ‘Salus populi suprema lex esto’ which means that welfare of the people should be the supreme law and if a person is causing any damage to a person’s rights or property as to prevent greater harm, it is excusable.

REFERENCES 

https://indiankanoon.org

https://ww.scconline.com

https://indiancaselaw.in/the-pioneer-container-kh-enterprise-v-pioneer-container/

This Article is written by KIRANMAI FROM INVERTIS UNIVERSITY  BAREILLY , Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin