How Does Anything Likely To Do Mischief If They Escape?
1. Consistent arguments across both cases
1.1. Mischief? “Likely to do mischief if they escape”
The cockroaches with their enhanced jaws have been shown in the facts to cause damage to wooden structures if exposed to them therefore they are likely to cause mischief in their escape. The cockroaches are consistent with the example of beasts given in Rylands v Fletcher.
1.2. Escape? “Anything likely to do mischief if it escapes”
In both cases the cockroaches have escaped onto land outside the defendant’s control therefore satisfying this element as per the definition of escape given in Read v Lyons. Whether the truck qualifies as ‘land’ to have been escaped off will be analyzed under 3.1.
1.3. Vis Major and Platiff fault
In both cases there is no …show more content…
3. Captain Cook Tavern v Bug Depository
3.1. “Brings onto land”
The defense would argue that the truck in question does not represent land as is meant in Rylands v Fletcher. Bringing vehicles into this definition would unduly broaden the effects of the ratio onto society, into areas that have other rules of law, for example chemical leaks from fuel trucks. The prosecution would counter that under the rationale of the R v F the emphasis is on land being an area under the control of the defendant, rather than a physical address. Because of this rationale this element is satisfied.
3.2. “For own purposes”
The defense would argue that the cockroaches were in the truck not for the defendants own purposes. Instead being for the benefit to general society. The prosecution would put forward that the defendant put the cockroaches on the truck for a purpose which they were party to. There is no relevant precedent upholding a defense based on ‘own purposes’. So based on the fact that the defendant brought them onto the truck for a purpose is enough to satisfy this element.
3.3. “Non-natural use of the
1.1. Mischief? “Likely to do mischief if they escape”
The cockroaches with their enhanced jaws have been shown in the facts to cause damage to wooden structures if exposed to them therefore they are likely to cause mischief in their escape. The cockroaches are consistent with the example of beasts given in Rylands v Fletcher.
1.2. Escape? “Anything likely to do mischief if it escapes”
In both cases the cockroaches have escaped onto land outside the defendant’s control therefore satisfying this element as per the definition of escape given in Read v Lyons. Whether the truck qualifies as ‘land’ to have been escaped off will be analyzed under 3.1.
1.3. Vis Major and Platiff fault
In both cases there is no …show more content…
3. Captain Cook Tavern v Bug Depository
3.1. “Brings onto land”
The defense would argue that the truck in question does not represent land as is meant in Rylands v Fletcher. Bringing vehicles into this definition would unduly broaden the effects of the ratio onto society, into areas that have other rules of law, for example chemical leaks from fuel trucks. The prosecution would counter that under the rationale of the R v F the emphasis is on land being an area under the control of the defendant, rather than a physical address. Because of this rationale this element is satisfied.
3.2. “For own purposes”
The defense would argue that the cockroaches were in the truck not for the defendants own purposes. Instead being for the benefit to general society. The prosecution would put forward that the defendant put the cockroaches on the truck for a purpose which they were party to. There is no relevant precedent upholding a defense based on ‘own purposes’. So based on the fact that the defendant brought them onto the truck for a purpose is enough to satisfy this element.
3.3. “Non-natural use of the