Q: What is foreseeable damage in strict liability tort ?

Ans: A forseeable damage in strict liability tort will also be related to dangerous thing, non natural use of land and escape. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: What are the differences between tresspass and nuisance?

Ans: Trespass,  is the direct physical interference with the plaintiff’s possession of the property through some material or tangible object whereas, in the case of a nuisance, it is an injury to some right of the possession of the property but not the possession itself. Trespass is actionable per se (actions which do not require allegations or proof), whereas, in the case of a nuisance, only the proof of actual damage to the property is required and is per se actionable.  Simply entering on another individual’s property without the owner’s consent and without causing him any injury would be trespass whereas if there is an injury to the property of another or any interference with his enjoyment of the property, then it will amount to a nuisance. It is to be noted that if the interference with the use of the property is direct, then the wrong is trespass whereas if the interference with the use or enjoyment of the property is consequential then it will amount to a nuisance. Exa...
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of strict liability in Rylands V. Fletcher, 1868 ?

Ans: Strict liability was initially introduced in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher  in 1868. The case was treated as an aspect of nuisance or a special rule of strict liability. The defendant, in order to improve his water supply, constructed a reservoir by employing reputed engineers. There was negligence on the part of contractors that they didn’t seal the mine shafts which they came across while constructing the reservoir due to which water flooded into plaintiff’s coal mine resulting into damage to the mines of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued Fletcher for damages. The engineers were independent contractors and thus were not held liable. Justice Blackburn J. held the defendant liable by introducing the concept of strict liability which states that “The rule of law is that the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so is prima facie answerab...
Read more

Q: What are the essentials of trespass to goods ?

  Ans: Essentials of trespass to goods: 1. It is a wrong against possession. 2. Any person whose possession of goods is directly interfered with can bring this action. But when owner has given up his possession i.e., by pledging the goods or giving them to another under hire and purchase agreement,  such right can not be exercised. 3. Trespass is a wrong against possession rather than ownership.   There is a case of Armory Vs. Delamire, 1722 in which the sweeper boy found the jewellery and the sweeper handed over the jewellery to the Jeweller. Since the sweeper found the jewellery,  thus sweeper has the possession of the jewellery. The Jeweller denied to return the jewellery to sweeper.  The sweeper filed case that the Jeweller had made wrong against possession and the Jeweller was held liable for trespass to goods.  4. Direct interference: There must be direct physical interference without lawful justification in trespass.  For instanc...
Read more