Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Strict liability - foreseeable?

  • 19-12-2008 03:14PM
    #1
    ImDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,096 ✭✭✭


    Hi folks, just a quick question.

    With regard to strict liability, can the term be applied in a case even where the consequences were unforeseeable? This is just a question from an intro to law exam I had the other day in college, and can't seem to find a definitive answer anywhere. The case quoted was that of Rylands V. Fletcher, and the application of strict liability whether the consequences were unforeseeable or not. If anyone could shed some light on this I would appreciate it!


Comments

  • #2
    NUTLEY BOY
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,346 ✭✭✭NUTLEY BOY


    ImDave wrote: »
    Hi folks, just a quick question.

    With regard to strict liability, can the term be applied in a case even where the consequences were unforeseeable? This is just a question from an intro to law exam I had the other day in college, and can't seem to find a definitive answer anywhere. The case quoted was that of Rylands V. Fletcher, and the application of strict liability whether the consequences were unforeseeable or not. If anyone could shed some light on this I would appreciate it!


    The general idea of strict liability is that once a "strict liability" type event happens fault is presumed to attach. Consideration of the negligence type concept of forseeability really does not really arise.


  • #3
    ImDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,096 ✭✭✭ImDave


    ^ Cheers Nutley Boy. That has alleviated some of my worries!


  • #4
    UrbanFox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 474 ✭✭UrbanFox


    ImDave wrote: »
    ^ Cheers Nutley Boy. That has alleviated some of my worries!

    Indeed.

    As I remember the definition of the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher it was held that the occupier was liable for the relevant escape even if he had been guilty of no negligence. This latter phrase was quite important as it made clear the idea of liability without consideration of negligence type concepts.


  • #5
    ImDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,096 ✭✭✭ImDave


    UrbanFox wrote: »
    Indeed.

    As I remember the definition of the rule in Rylands -v- Fletcher it was held that the occupier was liable for the relevant escape even if he had been guilty of no negligence. This latter phrase was quite important as it made clear the idea of liability without consideration of negligence type concepts.

    I was thinking along similar lines in the exam, but some colleagues put doubt into my mind when doing a post mortem on the paper. Cheers!


  • #6
    Duffman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,248 ✭✭✭Duffman


    I think R v F is a special category of negligence on its own as distinct from other types of strict liability. If you set out and applied the principles in the case you'll be grand.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement