Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
(1) No fault liability means liability of a person even without any negligent act on his part and even if he has taken due care and caution.
(2) If a person brings and keeps any dangerous thing on his land, then he is liable for any damage caused if the thing escapes.
(3) No one can be penalized for an Act of God, which is unforeseeable and unpredictable.

FACTUAL SITUATION: B owned and managed a company supplying electricity to the nearby locality. On a particular windy and stormy day, one of the wires snapped and was hanging down. A, a cyclist who was driving in the night, saw the wire from a distance. There was a nearby street light with low visibility. He came in contact with the wire and was electrocuted immediately. His heirs sued A on ground of strict liability.

DECIDE.

• A. A is not liable because B must have stayed in door on a windy day.
• B. A is not liable because B's negligence caused him injury.
• C. A is liable because supplying electricity is an inherently dangerous use of land and he should have been careful.
• D. A is not liable because sudden storm and winds without A's negligence was an act of God.

Answer 1

The correct option is C A is liable because supplying electricity is an inherently dangerous use of land and he should have been careful.

• The principle of no fault liability as was laid down in the case of Rylands v Fletcher states that any person keeping any dangerous thing on his land is expected to exercise an additional duty of care against proximate as well as remote damage. In the case of Giraudi v Electric Improvement Co. the California Supreme Court held a utility company liable for any injury to any person from electricity as it is in itself a dangerous thing.
  
• So, a electic utility company is under an obligation to exercise very great care to prevent any injury to person or property through escape of electricity.