Tort Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Tort Law - Essay Example Furthermore, the law of tort does not recognize any type of injury as a foundation of claim. For instance, tort law does not recognize an injury suffered during a football match. The reason behind this is lack of the legal duty on any individual player. Tort classifies duties into two general categories: The duties not to injure ‘full stop’-regarding the commission of activities that the law recognizes as hazardous; and the duties not to injure negligently, recklessly, or intentionally. Strict liability regulates the behaviors observed in the former instance of duties, while fault liability governs the conduct in the later form of duties (Elliot & Quinn 2007). A Brief From: To: Date: CASE 1 Facts Diane owns a garden centre in a rural area. She specializes in the growing and selling orchids, which need to be reared in a extremely warm climate. She constructed a number of greenhouses which are all heated with large storage tanks containing heating oil. Due to internal corr osion of the tanks, the oil escapes and contaminates some vegetables growing on a farm belonging to Juliana, her neighbor. The oil also escapes onto the public highway and Juliana, who is driving along the road at the time, skids and crashes her car. She suffers a cut and a broken arm. Issues 1- What are the elements of the rule in Ryland v Fletcher? Whether there is a possibility that she could sue under this rule or not 2- What type of damage is recoverable under this rule? 3- How is the liability for fire assessed? 4- What are the elements for private nuisance? Does she, as a neighbor, has a possibility of being successful in this course of action? 5- What damages are... The rule of Ryland against Fletcher concerns strict liability. It states that when a person occupying a piece of land uses something on it, which can lead to damage to its escape and keeps it permanently on land, will be responsible for any damage that may arise as a result of the escape. This rule usually includes rescuing many things, such as poisonous vegetation, electricity, couples and even harmful people. It is applicable in the following necessary conditions: first, there must be an exit from the defendant's land to a place outside his occupation. Secondly, the use of land should be normal, taking into account all the circumstances. It does not matter whether a person knows or does not know about the danger at the time when he brings dangerous things to his land and uses them. However, a person is not liable for damage if The damage results from the action of God, that is, actions that can not be prevented by any amount of human foresight or care; If the occurrence occurs as a result of the plaintiff's own fault; And in case of artificial work, supported both in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant. It is extremely important to note that Reyland sued Fletcher because of Fletcher's negligence; He himself was not careless, as he hired competent contractors to build a reservoir. He was not even aware of the mess from the contractors. It was contractors who were careless, not acting immediately, to prevent future losses that might arise as a result of the disorder they discovered.