Our company provides outstanding Ryland vs. fletcher essay help. The Ryland vs. Fletcher case of 1860s involved the defendant, John Ryland and the plaintiff, Thomas Fletcher. Fletcher took Ryland to court after a water reservoir in Ryland’s land overflowed causing damage to Fletcher’s mines. Fletcher sued Ryland because he believed that he had caused the damage. Ryland had hired the services of a private contractor to build the water reservoir, who after noticing some old mine shafts that were filled with unwanted fragment waste, chose not to fix them and proceeded with the construction.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Thomas Fletcher. The court found John Ryland guilty of trespass and nuisance. The defendant was dissatisfied with the ruling which led to his application of a second hearing where the three exchequer judges disapproved the first hearing on the grounds that evidence of negligence or intent was required.  The plaintiff, Thomas Fletcher, felt that the three judge exchequer was not fair on its ruling so he applied for a third hearing to a six bench judge exchequer chamber. The judges annulled the previous ruling in favour of Thomas Fletcher on the basis of liability. Their position was that if anyone brings to a land anything that is likely to cause misfortune and it escapes, it must be kept at owner’s risk and if he does not, he is liable to the damage that is the natural outcome of its damage unless the escape was the plaintiff’s fault or an act of God. The defendant appealed to the House of Lords but he was dismissed because the House of Lords agreed with the previous ruling.

The House of Lords went further to include a limitation to the existing liability to prevent misapprehension of facts in the court of law. The principle of strict liability was founded. Our company provides law students with the best Ryland vs. fletcher essay help at an affordable price.

 

 

Go to top