THE RULE IN RYLANDS vrs FLETCHER

In this video,we look at the rule in Rylannds vrs Fletcher. A rule that first developed as a tort of negligence but later metamorphosed into a distinct rule of Law. we explain with practical examples that make it very clear

[@DominicMwendwa-ls6tg]

Your elaboration is very very great,🔥🔥

[@reubenjedidiahchipemba1608]

Am Zambian and a law student,your presentations makes this concepts easy to understand and relate,thank you so much 🙏.

[@supremelawpublication]

glad it helped

[@maxwellboating-x2v]

Counsel please you do a video on scienter action

[@kabchannel5908]

The much awaited video, thank you Sir

[@supremelawpublication]

Hope you enjoyed it!

[@jamiegyamfua2524]

Amazing tutor. Keep it up

[@supremelawpublication]

Thanks a lot!

[@resahakon8337]

God bless you Sir 🙏
Long-awaited video

[@supremelawpublication]

You most welcome

[@dorinekotey2357]

Insightful

[@alexabagna7000]

VERY EDUCATIVE

[@AllyMmbaga-jh6pp]

That was great 😃

[@supremelawpublication]

Thanks

[@maame5352]

Very educative prof

[@supremelawpublication]

Thanks Mrs!

[@franklinaarthur4555]

Good one

[@supremelawpublication]

Thanks

[@ishmaeldjkomfa7847]

Supposing the Bees are in the house and a visitor comes to the house and the Bees beat the visitor, here there is no escape of the Bees but the mischief happened on the same compound .
Can the rule apply here ?
I want to pursue LLB at university that is why am asking this

[@moikovivian5009]

something should have triggered the bees biting. not until you know the trigger,you cant apply the rule. do you understand? if the visitor broke the hive and takes that to court for damages, that will be contributory negligence as defense

[@user-sn2cw2cz9m]

I love your content and the way you explain things. I just want to add that I doubt if the pitbull for example, will succeed in Ryland now because defendant might argue domestication of the dogs and hence not non-natural to the environment. Furthermore, Ryland has expanded with case like Cambridge Water and Read v Lyon. which might give the defendant Remoteness as defence. The other thing that needs mentioning is causation; Novus Actus Interveniens - all the things mentioned may happen but if another person influence it in one way or another, Novus acts can break the chain and Ryland will fail. In terms of Remedy, Ryland also hardly hardly compensate for personal injury and most of your examples include injuries. the actual of Ryland itself is a strict liability and it did not include injury to a person. I'd love to learn more from you. Thanks.