Skip to content

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

Ravi's neighbour Meena planted a row of trees on her land, and a branch fell on Ravi's wall during a storm, damaging it. Ravi sues under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Which reason most clearly defeats his claim under that rule?

Ravi's claim fails because the rule applies to a dangerous thing brought and accumulated on land in a non-natural use, whereas naturally growing trees are not. Intention is irrelevant and property damage is actionable, so those reasons do not defeat the claim.

  1. ATrees growing naturally on land are not a thing brought and accumulated for a non-natural useCorrect
  2. BMeena did not intend the branch to fall
  3. CRavi did not give notice before suing
  4. DThe damage was to a wall and not to a person

Explanation

The rule requires a dangerous thing brought onto land for non-natural use and its escape. Naturally growing trees are not such a thing. Intention is irrelevant under strict liability, and damage to property is covered by 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