Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Which one of the following is the ratio decidendi of the case of Rylands v. Fletcher?
1. A person is liable if he brings on his land some dangerous thing
2. The liability arises not because there was any fault on the person but because he kept some dangerous thing on his land
3. Even if the defendant was not negligent in causing the harm, he could still be made liable under the rule
4. A person, who for his own purposes brings on his lands and keeps there anything which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, is prima facie answerable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Which one of the following is the ratio decidendi of the case of Rylands v. Fletcher?
1. A person is liable if he brings on his land some dangerous thing
2. The liability arises not because there was any fault on the person but because he kept some dangerous thing on his land
3. Even if the defendant was not negligent in causing the harm, he could still be made liable under the rule
4. A person, who for his own purposes brings on his lands and keeps there anything which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, is prima facie answerable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct? Correct Answer 3 and 4

Related Questions

In which case following rule was laid: "We think that the true of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands 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. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient".
Consider the following statements:
1. A Circus Company keeps wild animals and trains them. One of them escapes and causes injury to a spectator. Company is not liable.
2. A person who brings and keeps any dangerous thing, keeps it at his risk, if it escapes and causes damages he is liable. Of these statements
"The person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril." Identify the Rule.
Consider the following statements:
For making occupier or owner of a land liable on the basis of strict liability rule certain essential factors are:
1. Keeping of a dangerous thing on his land.
2. non-natural use of land.
3. use of thing for common benefit.
4. escape of thing from his control.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
In the question below are given some statements followed by some conclusions based on the statements. Take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follows from the given statements. Statements: I. No field is land. II. Some gardens are land. Conclusions: I. Some lands are garden. II. Some lands are field.
Principle: A person is duty bound to act with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances.
Facts: The defendant 'D', built a hay stack near the boundary of his land which bordered the plaintiffs land. He had been warned several times by many in the vicinity over a period of five weeks that the manner in which he built the hay stack was dangerous. The defendant's hay stack had been built with a precautionary "chimney" to prevent the hay from spontaneously igniting, but one day it caught fire. Consequently, the hay ignited and spread to the plaintiffs land, burning down two of the plaintiffs cottages.
Is 'D' liable?
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? Why do some French people think that Hindi is the only Indian language?
Read the following passage carefully and choose the most appropriate answer to the question out of the four alternatives.
True, It is the function of the army to maintain law and order in abnormal times. But in normal times there is another force that compels citizens to obey the laws and to act with due regard to the rights of others. The force also protects the lives and the properties of law abiding men. Laws are made to secure the personal safety of its subjects and to prevent murder and crimes of violence. They are made to secure the property of the citizens against theft and damage to protect the rights of communities and castes to carry out their customs and ceremonies, so long as they do not conflict with the rights of others. Now the good citizen, of his own free will obey these laws and he takes care that everything he does is done with due regard to the rights and well-being of others. But the bad citizen is only restrained from breaking these laws by fear of the consequence of his actions. And the necessary steps to compel the bad citizen to act as a good citizen are taken by this force. The supreme control of law and order in a State is in the hands of a Minister who is responsible to the State Assembly and acts through the Inspector General of Police.
"They are made to secure the property of citizens against theft and damage" means that the law:
In each of the following question below are given some statements followed by some conclusions. Taking the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts, read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusion logically follows the given statements. Statements: I. All insects are dangerous. II. All machines are dangerous. Conclusions: I. All dangerous are insects. II. All dangerous are machines. III. Some machines are insects.
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? The writer was working at a university in which country?