Principle: A person who brings on his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for damage caused by the escape (Rylands v Fletcher). Facts: F operates a chemical-storage facility. A tank ruptures despite reasonable care and acid escapes, damaging a neighbour's crops. F's liability is
ALimited to half the damages
BAvailable only if F had insurance
CExcluded because F took reasonable care
DStrict, without proof of negligence
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: D. Strict, without proof of negligence
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) imposes strict liability: bringing a dangerous thing onto one's land for one's own purposes triggers liability for escape without proof of negligence. India's M C Mehta v UoI (1986) goes further with absolute liability for hazardous industry.
Related questions
Three workers complete a job in 6 days. With a fourth worker of the same efficiency, the tThe area of a triangle with base 10 cm and height 8 cm isSimplify: (3/4) divided by (9/16) equalsStatement: 'India must invest in renewable energy to meet its climate commitments.'
ConcluFind the next number in the sequence: 2, 6, 12, 20, 30, ____Pick the option that BEST completes the analogy: Page : Book :: ____ : SymphonyThe 99th Constitutional Amendment 2014 (the NJAC) wasArticle 15(4) of the Constitution