Search Results

Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc.
Content Type: 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 ...

Case Overviews
Content Type: 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. ...

Golden v. Amory
Content Type: 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
Content Type: 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
Content Type: 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. ...

Fletcher v. Rylands
Content Type: 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. ...

Rylands v. Fletcher
Content Type: 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. ...

Fletcher v. Rylands
Content Type: Brief

View this case and other resources at: ...

Rylands v. Fletcher
Content Type: 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. ...