Skip to content

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

In Rylands v. Fletcher, the House of Lords held a landowner liable for damage caused by escape of water from a reservoir built on his land. Which statement best captures the rule laid down in that case?

Under Rylands v. Fletcher, a person who brings and keeps on his land something likely to cause mischief if it escapes is liable for damage resulting from its escape, even if he was not negligent. Fault is not required.

  1. AA person who brings and keeps on his land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is answerable for damage caused by its escape, even without negligenceCorrect
  2. BA person is liable only if he intentionally released the dangerous thing onto a neighbour's land
  3. CA person is liable only where he fails to take reasonable care in storing a dangerous thing
  4. DA person is liable only when the thing escaping is naturally present on the land

Explanation

The rule of strict liability makes the occupier answerable for damage from escape of a dangerous thing brought and accumulated for his own purposes, without proof of negligence or intention. Options requiring intention or lack of care wrongly import fault, and natural presence of the thing is actually outside the rule.

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