Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:52

From: Janet O'Sullivan

Subject: Contributory negligence in strict liability?

Going back to Lionel's original message, isn't it supposed to be impossible to claim for personal injury under Rylands v Fletcher these days, since Cambridge Water decided that the tort is a branch of private nuisance? (I've always thought that, if so, that makes Lord Nicholls' mention in Transco v Stockport of the Aberfan tragedy as an example of an exceptional case deserving of strict liability rather distasteful - Aberfan was exceptional because scores of children died, not because the value of the property was reduced!)

Best wishes
Janet

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Janet O'Sullivan
Director of Studies in Law
Selwyn College
Cambridge
CB3 9DQ

01223 335846

On Mar 23 2007, Jones, Michael wrote:

In English cases of employers' liability based on the common law action for breach of statutory duty contributory negligence is routinely pleaded, even where the duty can be said to fairly strict.

And, under the Animals Act 1971, s. 2(1) provides for a very strict form of liability for animals belonging to a dangerous species (which clearly covers tigers), yet s. 10 permits the defence of contributory negligence.

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>