Rylands v. Fletcher
Brief

View this case and other resources at: Citation. 24 Nev. 251, 52 P. 274, 1898 Nev. Brief Fact Summary. Water from Defendant's reservoir escaped onto Plaintiff's land because of an unknown latent defect in Defendant's subsoil. Plaintiff sued Defendant for trespass. Synopsis of Rule of Law. One who lawfully brings something onto his land, which though harmless while it remains there will naturally do mischief if it escapes the land, will be strictly liable for its escape. ...

Rylands v. Fletcher
Brief

View this case and other resources at: Citation. 24 Nev. 251, 52 P. 274,1898 Nev. Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff sued in connection with the flooding of his mine. The trial court found in his favor. Defendant sought review. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A person who for his own purposes brings on his lands 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 the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. ...

Fletcher v. Rylands
Brief

View this case and other resources at: Citation. 159 ER 737, Volume 159 Brief Fact Summary. Water from Defendant's reservoir escaped onto Plaintiff's land because of an unknown latent defect in Defendant's subsoil. Plaintiff sued Defendant for trespass. Synopsis of Rule of Law. This action is maintainable on the plain ground that Defendant has caused water to flow into Plaintiff's land. ...

Fletcher v. Rylands
Brief

View this case and other resources at: ...

Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc.
Brief

View this case and other resources at: Citation. 272 Ill.App.3d 263, 209 Ill.Dec. 311, 651 N.E.2d 239 (Ill. Ct. App. 1995) Brief Fact Summary. Person struck by stray bullet at a quarry, where police target practice was conducted, sues in strict liability claiming the use of firearms should be considered “ultrahazardous” activity. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If an activity is deemed “ultrahazardous”, strict liability is imposed and there is no need to prove negligence. Courts must analyze the following factors to determine whether an activity is ...

Golden v. Amory
Brief

View this case and other resources at: Citation. 329 Mass. 484, 109 N.E.2d 131, 1952 Mass. Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiffs, Golden and others (Plaintiffs), claim that Defendant, Amory's (Defendants), negligence in maintaining a dike caused them real estate damage after a hurricane resulted in a flood. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Plaintiffs are not responsible under strict liability theories when the damage caused was an unanticipated act of God. ...

Bolton v. Stone
Brief

View this case and other resources at: Citation. 108 Fed. Appx. 548, 2004 U.S. App Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff was struck in the head by a cricket ball from Defendant's cricket club. Plaintiff sued Defendant for public nuisance and negligence. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The test to be applied here is whether the risk of damage to a person on the road was so small that a reasonable man in the position of the Defendant, considering the matter from the point of view of safety, would have thought it right to refrain from taking steps to prevent danger. ...

Brown v. Collins
Brief

View this case and other resources at: Citation. 541 U.S. 948, 124 S. Ct. 1684 158 L. Ed. 2d 377 2004 U.S. Brief Fact Summary. Collins (Defendant) unintentionally and without fault entered and damaged Brown (Plaintiff) land when his horses became frightened. Plaintiff sued Defendant for trespass. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The distinction made between natural and unnatural use of land is not established in the law. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher would impose penalty upon efforts made in a reasonable, skillful, and careful manner. ...

Table Of Cases
StudyBuddy

TABLE OF CASES Alexander v. Medical Assoc. Clinic Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. Ash v. Cohn Ault v. International Harvester Co. Avila v. Citrus Community College District Baker v. Bolton Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. Barr v. Matteo Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. Becker v. IRM Corp. Bennett v. Stanley Berkovitz v. U.S. Bierczynski v. Rogers Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. Bird v. Jones Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBI Blakeley v. Shortal’s Estate Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Department Store Boomer v. Atlantic Cement ...

Caveat Actor: Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities
StudyBuddy

15 Caveat Actor: Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities INTRODUCTION Many students come to law school with the belief that an actor who causes injury to another is always liable for that injury. However, in cases governed by negligence law, this is not the case. Recovering in an action for negligence requires proof that the defendant breached the duty of due care. Since many accidents result from unexpected circumstances, unknowable mechanical defects, weather conditions or other nonnegligent causes, injured parties are often unable to recover, even though another person cause ...

Table Of Contents
StudyBuddy

Table of Contents Preface Casebook Correlation Chart Capsule Summary Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION I. NATURE OF TORT LAW A. No satisfactory definition II. CATEGORIES OF TORTS A. Three types of defendant conduct B. Historical overview C. Combined torts D. Analyzing tort problems 1. Basic requirements 2. Are defenses available? 3. What damages? III. SOURCES OF LAW Chapter 2 INTENTIONAL TORTS AGAINST THE PERSON I. “INTENT” DEFINED A. Intent generally 1. Summary of rule 2. Intent to commit different tort B. “Substantial certainty” C. No intent to har ...

STRICT LIABILITY
StudyBuddy

Chapter 13 STRICT LIABILITY   The liability we have seen thus far has been based either upon intent or upon negligence. We examine in this chapter certain situations, particularly those involving animals and abnormally dangerous activities, in which liability is imposed even where neither intent nor negligence is present. Such liability is sometimes called “liability without fault” or “absolute liability.” However, the more commonly-accepted term, and the more descriptive one, is “strict liability.” The key concepts in this chapter are: Basis for:  The basis for stri ...

Case Overviews
Outline

Rylands v. Fletcher (1865-1868) Facts: The defendant had a reservoir constructed close to the plaintiff's coal mines. When the reservoir filled, water broke through an abandoned mine shaft and flooded the plaintiff's mines. Though the contractors and engineers were negligent, the defendant was not personally negligent. ...