2. The thing must be brought onto the land for the d's use. What does this mean? What case backs this up?
Back
Card 7
Front
3. The thing must be likely to do mischief if it escapes. It is no longer a requirment that the things must be intrinsically dangerous.What did Lord Bingham say in what case?
Back
Card 8
Front
What did the case of Hale v Jennings Bros show to be dangerous when it escaped?
Back
Card 9
Front
In what case did they state that damage must be forseeable and that there was no need to retain the concept of dangerous thing because this is a presumption that is made when assuming the damage is reasonably forseeable?
Back
Card 10
Front
4. The thing must escape from the d's land or where the d has occupation and control over the land to a place where he does not. What case shows this?
Back
Card 11
Front
However, it has been held in a recent case that the thing that escapes need not be the initial dangerous thing that has been brought onto the land, providing the escape occurs during non-natural use. What case shows this and explain this ruling.
Back
Card 12
Front
5. Non natural use of the land. The thing brought onto the land must be used for non natural use of the land. What case defines this? What does this case say?
Back
Card 13
Front
What did Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England Ltd show?
Back
Card 14
Front
In what case did the courts hold that ordinarily the thing (factory making electrical goods) would be non natural use but as it benefited the community in this case it didn't amount to non natural use?
Back
Card 15
Front
Are the courts reluctant to find that the thing was for natural use just because the community derives a benefit from it? Give case.
