Friday Night Quiz

Prospecting Australia

Help Support Prospecting Australia:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
shakergt said:
Well I know 9 of them with no doubt but adventure island was a complete guess. I must be showing my generation with this one.

https://www.prospectingaustralia.com/forum/img/member-images/10374/1572602982_img_0996.jpg
1572604541_th_5.jpg
 
You scored: 4 / 10
You scored 60 points.
The average score for this quiz: 6 / 10

Hahaha there you go never been to court :playful:
 
1573197128_quiz.jpg


Number 2 doesn`t make sense.

I challenge the quizmaster on this one.

When the quiz is over ,someone can explain to me why any of the options are correct and i will tell you which one i picked.
 
This is about as much as i can find out

intentional
As for the intent element, technically the person must intend to be on the land that they are on. But, in keeping with the hair-splitting often found in the nooks and crannies of the law, this does not mean the person must know that they are trespassing. To illustrate this point, imagine walking along a road, out in the country, that is bordered by a large field, which you are unsure whether it is private property or public land. In a simple example, the law draws a distinction between deciding to cut across the property (trespassing), and say accidentally meandering off the road in darkness (no trespassing).
But, lack of intent is not a complete bar to prosecution negligent acts that lead to entry can be prosecuted as well. So, if instead of walking along the road at night, you were driving along at an excessive speed and accidentally left the road and entered the property, trespassing would likely be found.
Trespassing should be contrasted with nuisance, which protects the quiet enjoyment of land. The major differences between the two torts are that nuisance claims need to show both damages and that the invasion was unreasonable elements noticeably lacking in trespassing.
breaking and entering
Traditionally, burglary required a person to break into and enter another persons dwelling place, such as a house or apartment, at night with the intent to commit a felony once inside. For example, if John Doe broke into his neighbors house at night with the intent to steal all of his neighbors gold jewelry, he would be guilty of burglary. In order for burglary to occur, the breaking and entering must be done using some type of force. The force can be as negligible as opening a door or as substantial as breaking down a door with an axe. Some jurisdictions consider threats or coercion sufficient enough to establish breaking and entering.
Many jurisdictions have expanded on the traditional definition of burglary by removing some of the elements of the crime. For instance, the traditional definition of burglary requires the breaking and entering to occur between dusk and dawn. Some jurisdictions have eliminated this requirement and will consider the crime a burglary, even if it is committed during daylight hours. In other jurisdictions, burglary crimes are not limited to a dwelling place, and they can also be committed in churches, stores, and other businesses.
Breaking and entering can also be an element of trespassing. In general, a trespass occurs when a person goes on another persons property without permission. Unlike a burglary, a trespass does not require intent to commit a crime. For instance, suppose that John Doe opened a window and climbed into his neighbors house without permission simply to watch television. While John Doe would not be guilty of burglary, he would be guilty of trespassing.

negligent
Trespass is an invasion in to anothers exclusive right to possession of property. It is a direct unlawful interference with anothers property.
Generally, the main elements of trespass are:
an unlawful intrusion or invasion upon a property,
intent of intrusion,
force,and
consequent injury to an owner.
A trespass is said to be committed when one enters upon the land or property of another without the consent either express or implied, of the owner or occupier thereof. A court has to decide whether a trespassers intrusion has violated a legally protected possessory interest of a plaintiff. There must be an affirmative act, or a misfeasance causing intrusion in order to constitute an act of trespass. A persons mere presence on a property without an act will not be subject to tort liability.
A trespass becomes intentional when the acts leading to the invasion were done with knowledge that a trespass would result. It is not required that the acts were done for the specific purpose of causing a trespass or injury. Usually, the age of a child will not protect him/her from liability if his/her act amounts to a trespass. However, an initial determination must be made whether a child trespasser formed the intent to do the physical act as trespass is an intentional tort. While doing so, a childs age, experience, and knowledge must be taken into consideration.
A landowner has to prove intent to trespass or cause harm by release of hazardous chemicals in order to claim damages for intentional trespass and nuisance[iv]. But, where a trespass results in damage, a trespasser is liable without reference to negligence or duty to due care.
A reasonable foreseeability that an act would intrude a plaintiffs possessory interest may be considered an element of trespass. A trespasser need not foresee the specific injury that may occur due to his/her act. Intrusions such as noise or vibrations may constitute a trespass if they cause actual physical damage[v].
Force may be treated as an element when trespass is the immediate result of force originally applied by a trespasser. It is not essential that a defendant act with a specific intention, if an injury is the immediate result of a force applied and damage occurred as a result.
A party is liable for trespass even though s/he acts under a mistaken belief of law or in good faith. A mistaken belief that s/he is committing no wrong, however reasonable will not exempt a trespasser from liability. Thus, a person who believes a land is his/her own, or that s/he has consent of the owner, or legal privilege of entry, or although s/he is a child too young to be aware of the wrong will be treated a trespasser. However, some jurisdictions protect individuals under the innocent trespasser rule who enter the land of another under a mistaken belief that it is permissible to do so. Under this rule, an unintentional entry onto anothers land does not automatically subject a person to trespass liability even though it causes harm to the possessor of the land.
Generally, an actual injury must have occurred to the property or rights of a person for a liability for trespass to be arise. It may also require that an intrusion on land must be substantial and has resulted in harm. However it has also been held that an unauthorized intrusion upon anothers land is considered an injury. One who intentionally and without consent or other privilege enters anothers land is liable as a trespasser irrespective of whether harm is thereby caused to the other persons legally protected interests.

direct
Trespass is an invasion in to anothers exclusive right to possession of property. It is a direct unlawful interference with anothers property. Generally, the main elements of trespass are: an unlawful intrusion or invasion upon a property,
 
Thanks, 7.62 Marksman.

So i am right and they are wrong. It says there that breaking and entering CAN be an element of trespass. I don`t see why it shouldn`t be ,anyway.

Who asks someone else to their place of residence or employment to do a break and enter ? It is pure trespass.

So, the whole question 2 is null and void and wrong ,wrong, wrong .
 
My understanding of trespass as it was explained to me once is that if you are on land with or without permission and you are asked to leave and you dont leave you will be charged.
If you leave, no charges can be laid.
If you leave and then return later you will be charged as you are deemed to have interfered with the owners enjoyment / pleasure of their property.

Im also pretty sure the action of bowing entering and leaving the courts is pretty much disappeared.
 
Top