LOADING...
20 Jan

TORT 2.2B STRICT LIABILITY DEFENCES

We move on to: DEFENCES: The defendant can plead/claim that:

:: The Plaintiff (i.e. claimant/injured party) is at fault or is contributorily negligent. See Pointing V Noakes (above)

:: Consent/authorization of the claimant/plaintiff.

:: The escape and damage was unforeseeable, incomprehensible not self-induced. i.e. an Act of nature: like floods, storm, hurricane and so on causing things on his land to escape and damage neighbouring properties-Nichols V Marsland. Although in recent times, the courts have required a stricter proof. See Corporation of Greenok v. Caledonian Railway Co.

:: Statutory authority: the defendant can show that he is expressly protected by law from liability resulting from damage notwithstanding they were caused by him.

:: Deliberate Act of an Unauthorised Stranger. In Perry V Kendricks Transport Ltd, where mischievous children threw a lighted match into the defendant’s petrol tank (and there was an explosion which damaged neighbouring properties) the defendant (owner of the vehicle) was not liable. In Box V Jubb, the defendant was not liable for the flooding caused by his reservoir because a third party had emptied their reservoir into his own.

The REMEDY is damages for losses/damage/injuries arising. Although the courts in Cambridge Waterworks v. Eastern Counties Leather, have noted that the damage resulting from the escape must have been reasonably foreseeable.

 

Isochukwu

Quite eccentric really

Leave a Reply

error: Contact 09032228252
%d bloggers like this: