Farmer V Pilot Essay

Intentional Torts are defined as “voluntary acts that harm a protected interest” (McAdams, 2015, p. 279). The voluntary act must be found to be an intended act, done on purpose, even though the harm done by the act may not have been intended; however, the victim or plaintiff does not need to prove that the harm done was intended (p.279). In this particular case, was there an intentional act done by the airlines or pilot, which in turn caused injury to the plaintiff?

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

Under the case of Hare v van Brugge [2013] NSWCA 74, the court had ruled that the dominant party (Van Brugge ) had the right under the clause “to go, pass and repass at all times and for all purposes with or without animals or vehicles or both to and from the said dominant tenement or any such part thereof” without the rights being dictated by the servant party. Under this context it can be said that you have the right according to your easement too allow any person that is allowed to enter your property too “go, pass and repass at all times and for all purposes with or without animals or vehicles or both to and from the said dominant tenement”. This means the use the inclinator is for the use of the dominant party until a breach of this easement

7. The Taylors bought an ocean front lot in Oregon. The next year, Staley bought an ocean front lot south of the Taylors and built a home on it. Over the years, Staley often expressed concern that when the Taylors built their house, they could block her view. They said they would not. When they began planning their home, they asked Staley to submit a letter in support of a setback variance they sought. She said she would as long as her view wasn’t blocked. They again told her it wouldn’t be blocked. When the house was built, it partially blocked her view. She sued for breach of an

obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court

§ 75.007. TRESPASSERS. (a) In this section, "trespasser" means a person who enters the land of another without any legal right, express or implied.

The main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.

● Assumption of the risk: If plaintiff is aware of the danger, but decides to subject

Rules: The majority of jurisdictions in the United States allow for recovery in cases of trespass to land, and in this case Farmer would have grounds to file a claim for intentional tort against Pilot, as his privately owned land was trespassed on, with the action resulting in quantifiable damage to Farmer's valuable crops. The courts must decide whether or not Pilot's landing of the plane in Farmer's field constitutes an intentional act, or simply an act of negligence on Pilot's part. To do so, they must examine the three elements of trespass to land: Voluntary Act, Intent, and Damages. Another aspect of this case that the courts would consider is that of liability, as according to an article published by the Harvard Law Review, "cases of liability are those in which the defendant generates a disproportionate, excessive risk of harm, relative to the victim's risk-creating activity ... (and) a pilot or an airplane owner subjects those beneath the path of flight to nonreciprocal risks of harm" (Fletcher, 1972).

The action is an intentional tort. This means doing a civil wrong and validating a legal duty to another party.

What this entails is that the actual sole physical occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for the person occupying the property must be establish. Lisa demonstrated this by construction a fence between her house and Danny’s. In fact, by doing this, she establish sole possession of the property in question. Once more, by fencing in the property, and the fact that Danny knew what she was doing because he lived next door and did not contest, showed Lisa was being open, visible, and notorious with her actions. She also was continuous and peaceable with her actions because during the fifteen years of usage, there were no issues with Danny, and he never complained that her actions were wrong. Only after fifteen years and a survey, did the ownership questions come up. Lastly, Lisa believed that the property was hers and never asked or obtained permission before erecting the fence. Since all the elements coexist, Lisa has a legal right to claim adverse possession to the property. Furthermore, the state has a statutory period for adverse possession of ten years. What this means is that Lisa must have occupied the property for the full statutory period, and this action must have coexisted with the other elements of adverse possession before the statute of limitations runs out. It was not until fifteen years later, and only after the survey, Lisa found out

Whether the homeless possessor has the legal right to any portion the landowner’s property, if he has paid taxes for the last thirteen years, file a return and has protected the property by substantial enclosure. Whether the homeless possessor has the right to any part of the two acres in disputed despite the fact that the registered owner has consciously, and willingly permitted him to stay in the property.

With the permission of the seller, Broker A submits a listing to MLS inviting cooperating brokers to help find a buyer. This is an offer of:

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

R: An easement may be implied by prior use even if the conveyor of a parcel, which was once contiguous, is the claimant of the easement.