Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

Dev, a factory owner, stores a large quantity of chemicals. A thief breaks in without Dev's knowledge, tampers with a tank and chemicals escape, damaging a neighbour's crops. The neighbour sues under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Dev's strongest defence is:

Dev's strongest defence is the act of a stranger. The escape was caused by an unforeseeable intruder over whom he had no control, which is a recognised exception to liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. No consent or plaintiff fault exists.

  1. AAct of a stranger, since the escape was caused by an unforeseeable third party beyond his controlCorrect
  2. BConsent of the plaintiff
  3. CPrivate defence
  4. DPlaintiff's own negligence

Explanation

Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, the act of a stranger over whom the defendant has no control, and whose act could not reasonably be anticipated or prevented, is a recognised exception. The facts show no consent by the neighbour, no self-defence, and no negligence by the neighbour. Hence the stranger's act is the strongest defence.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions