Author: admin

ISSUE:

Was the defendant liable for the damages to the plaintiff considering that the act was done by a third party?

RULE:

A person who for his own purposes 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 answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

An additional requirement of foreseeability is also necessary- If the thing escapes, how likely is to damage property

ISSUE:

Was there non-natural use of the land? Could the defendant be held liable for the actions of a third party?

RULE:

An ordinary use of land or a use that is for the benefit of the general community cannot bring about the principle of Rylands v Fletcher. The supply of water to the parts of the building has become more of a necessity than that of a reasonable act.

ISSUE:

Can the corporation be held liable for the leak?

RULE:

Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate with regard to the principle of strict liability