Podcast
Questions and Answers
What must the defendant have done in order to be liable under the principle in Rylands v Fletcher?
What must the defendant have done in order to be liable under the principle in Rylands v Fletcher?
What characterizes the defendant's use of land in the context of Rylands v Fletcher?
What characterizes the defendant's use of land in the context of Rylands v Fletcher?
Which of the following is a potential defense for the defendant in Rylands v Fletcher?
Which of the following is a potential defense for the defendant in Rylands v Fletcher?
What kind of damage must occur for a claim under Rylands v Fletcher to succeed?
What kind of damage must occur for a claim under Rylands v Fletcher to succeed?
Signup and view all the answers
Which of the following is a remedy available in a claim under Rylands v Fletcher?
Which of the following is a remedy available in a claim under Rylands v Fletcher?
Signup and view all the answers
Study Notes
Rylands v Fletcher
- In this case, there are two parties involved in the action.
- The defendant is responsible for bringing something to the land, which is either man-made or accumulated.
- The defendant's use of their land is considered "non-natural", meaning it is not a typical or expected use.
- The thing brought to the land is likely to cause harm or mischief if it escapes.
- The thing does escape and causes physical damage to the surrounding area.
- There are two potential defences to this action: "acts of God" (unforeseen natural events) and "acts of a stranger" (actions of a third party).
- There are three possible remedies available: injunctions (stopping the harmful activity), damages (monetary compensation), and abatements (removing the harmful thing).
Studying That Suits You
Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.
Description
This quiz covers the key aspects of the Rylands v Fletcher case, including the parties involved, the defendant's actions, and the remedies available. Test your knowledge of this landmark tort law case.
