Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Bison to be reintroduced to Kent woodland
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dry Rot" data-source="post: 8253758" data-attributes="member: 4505"><p>From the distant recesses of my memories of college several decades ago, I seem to remember the case of Rylands v Fletcher. Briefly, the principle this established was that "the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects 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 <em>prima facie</em> answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". Has this been superseded by a more recent case? I don't think it's possible to insure against something that is inevitable, so why is this even being discussed? As above. Madness - total madness.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dry Rot, post: 8253758, member: 4505"] From the distant recesses of my memories of college several decades ago, I seem to remember the case of Rylands v Fletcher. Briefly, the principle this established was that "the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects 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 [I]prima facie[/I] answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". Has this been superseded by a more recent case? I don't think it's possible to insure against something that is inevitable, so why is this even being discussed? As above. Madness - total madness. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Bison to be reintroduced to Kent woodland
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top