Contents

Introduction. 2

Statement of Issues. 3

Statement of Facts. 3

Submission. 4

Conclusion. 7

Table of Cases. 8

Table of Legislation. 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT

HOSS

Appellant

v

ADAM

Respondent

SKELETON ARGUMENT

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT HOSS

Introduction

1. This is the Appeal by the Appellant against the Respondent in the Supreme Court of United Kingdom the Appellant Hoss owns Sweet Acres Farm, and she permitted Cecily, a veterinary surgeon, to keep horses on a paddock in the middle of Sweet Acres. According to Hoss, knowledge of the horses had contracted a newly discovered horse disease. In the tenancy period of one month, Hoss has no provision to enter in Sweet Acres for any purpose.

2. Adam, a neighbor, owned Green Acres Orchard infected by the disease and suffered permanent lung damage as this disease found windborne. Cecily also died at that incident. Hoss awarded £50,000 for his injuries, and she considers that it was foreseeable a reasonable person could not reasonably have foreseen that spores could be windborne as far as the neighboring farm.

However, Hoss was strictly liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher[1] by keeping the horses on Sweet Acres on non-natural use of the land.

Statement of Issues

3. Two issues arise in this Appeal for determination:

(1) Hoss should not have been held liable for the escape of a dangerous substance under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher[2] When he had relinquished control of the relevant land to a tenant.

(2) Strict liability under the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher[3] Should not have been applied to create liability for personal injuries suffered by a person.

Hoss claim that she is not liable for the escape of a dangerous substance; a reasonable person could not reasonably have foreseen that spores could be windborne as far as the neighboring farm.

Statement of Facts

4. The first thing of consideration is that Hoss had not allowed entering in Sweet Acres for any purpose. She is on an agreement with the tenancy. This statement is a clue to the truth of the statement given by the Hoss that she is not liable for the escape of a dangerous substance, a reasonable person could not reasonably have foreseen that spores could be windborne as far as the neighboring farm. However, keeping the horses on Sweet Acres was came under the rule of animals in Ryland v. Fletcher[4] But the most important there are two reasons that evidence for the Hoss the first is that Hoss paid the award to Adam to his loss. However, she also considers this wrong and pays for that; secondly, it was foreseeable that the disease could harm any human being whom it affected. The prediction of spores could be windborne as far as the neighboring farm can be blind because Hoss was not allowed to enter the Sweet Acres due to her agreement of tenancy with Cecily.
5. The second and significant fact is that Hoss already paid Adam for his loss even the land is not under her control she has respect for the neighborhood, and she contributed her part as paid the amount of £50,000 to Adam for his loss. She considers that it was foreseeable a reasonable person could not reasonably have foreseen that spores could be windborne as far as the neighboring farm. When the damage is already paid, even the Appellant was controlling the land. She priorities the ethics of the UK society for the neighborhood and pay the handsome amount due to the damage that happened.
6. The point of conflict was, “Spores carrying the disease were windborne to the neighboring Green Acres Orchard owned by Adam. As a result, Adam contracted the disease and suffered permanent lung damage. Cecily died shortly afterward”. In this statement, it is clearly stated that the spores carrying the disease were windborne to the Green Acres Orchard; it is the real cause of the spreading of the disease. But this point also gives a clue that at that time, Sweet Acres was under the control of the Cecily for a month as the tenancy period. Cecily is the real suspect of this damage, he is not only damaged Green Acres Orchard of Adam, but he also lost his life due to that particular reason.

7. Although Hoss already acknowledged the horse disease as described in the case statement “To Hoss’ knowledge, the horses had contracted a newly discovered and very contagious horse disease, which Cecily wished to observe to learn how to combat it”. The point is clear that Cecily wished to observe and learn how to deal with that particular disease. There is no involvement of Hoss is this process, even in the agreement of tenancy, it is clearly stated that Hoss is not allowed to enter in Sweet Acres for any purpose. And as already mentioned that Hoss is paid the damage to Adam in the form of £50,000. She takes care of all moral values and ethics.

Submission

First Submission:

Hoss should not have been held liable for the escape of a dangerous substance under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher when she had relinquished control of the relevant land to a tenant.

8. This submission tells about the Hoss is not liable for the escape of a dangerous substance because she left Sweet Acres and make an agreement of tenancy with the Cecily for a month, in the deal it is decided that Hoss is not allowed to enter the Sweet Acres during the period of the lease, that was one month. While she had relinquished control of the relevant land to a tenant, so she is not responsible for anything that happened in that place. She is only responsible for that she has under control, at the time of the escape of a dangerous substance, the land was under the control of Cecily under the tenancy agreement he made with the Hoss for one month.

9.The [5]Tenancy Agreement of UK clearly stated that the owner of the land must carry out the essential repairs of the area before the tenancy after that both parties make a tenancy agreement, it may give you the fundamental right about the property it also includes the terms and condition for you also written on that particular agreement. A tenancy agreement can be of specific words or implied terms, but both parties need to follow that. So according to this law, the evidence is that Hoss and Cecily signed an agreement of tenancy in which both parties were agreed at that point, Hoss is not responsible for Sweet Acres for one month even she was not allowed to came to see the land for any purpose. This is clear evidence that Hoss should not liable for the escape of the dangerous disease as she had relinquished control of the relevant area to a tenant.

10. [6]LT Act is also the evidence of the Hoss claim that Hoss is not responsible for that land that she had relinquished. She is only responsible for that land that she has under observation and authority. As mentioned earlier in the tenancy agreement, both parties decided that Hoss had given the responsibility to Cecily, and now Cecily is responsible for that happened in that land. Hoss was not liable for any breakout of the disease of the horses and the escape of the animals because she had not in control at that particular time. All the agreement signed before the tenancy and this fact was clearly stated that Hoss would not be allowed to enter the Sweet Acres during the tenancy period that was for one month.

Second Submission:

Strict liability under the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher should not have been applied to create liability for personal injuries suffered by a person.

11. In Ryland v. Fletcher[7]it was acknowledged about the non-natural use of the land as the Hoss already make an agreement with the Cecily about the apart herself from the area, in the period of the tenancy. So, there is clear evidence that Hoss was not responsible for that incident, and even she pays the awarded amount to Adam to his loss. Because at the time of that incident happened, Cecily was in the control of the Sweet Acres, and Hoss had no liabilities of the Sweet Acres. Even she was not allowed to enter the land during the tenancy period of one month. This tenancy agreement is evidence for Hoss as also she is not allowed to come in Sweet Acres during the period of tenancy that was about one month.
12. 12. In proof of the Appellant, there are two fundamentals issues one is that should not have been held liable for the escape of a dangerous substance when she had relinquished control of the relevant land to a tenant. The second one is strict liability under the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher[8] should not have been applied so as to create liability for personal injuries suffered by a person. By the ethical way, the Appellant paid the award of the amount of £50,000 as considering the loss of the Respondent. She takes care of all the moral values and ethics of the neighborhood.

13.In the Neighbour principle of English law[9]It is mentioned that a person should take care of his neighbor and have the responsibility to avoid the acts and omission that he/she can reasonably make injuries to the neighbors. In that fact, the Appellant Hoss has taken care of all things about the neighborhood, as she paid the award to the neighbor for their loss for £50,000. The fact is also that she is only responsible for that land that she has under observation and authority. But at the time the disease spread out, this period was under the tenancy, and she is allowed to enter in their Sweet Acres as per the tenancy agreement. So, at that time, the Sweet Acres was under the control of the Cecily.

14. It is also good ethics to contact with the legal advisers before going to Court against the neighbor because it is norms of the UK to stay safe and save the other. As, if we consider this case when Hoss had paid the loss of the neighbor in the form of £50,000. She was restricted in the period of the tenancy even to enter his land. So, Respondent should take the consultancy and consider that fact the Appellant Hoss is not liable for this unfortunate incident because she was not at the control at that particular time. She also respects the ethics of the neighborhood; she paid the award of an amount to the loss of the Respondent.
15. Hoss consideration about the liability is the main point of concern in the determination because, in the submission of the Appeal, it is stated that the strict liability under the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher should not have been applied to create liability for personal injuries suffered by a person. Because she was not in the control of Sweet Acres while this fatal disease escapes and impacted on the neighborhood. This evidence is against this submission of “Strict liability under the rule in Ryland v. Fletcher should not have been applied to create liability for personal injuries suffered by a person.”

Conclusion

16. The Court should uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal because the Respondent does not have the right to hold the Appellant liable for the escape of a dangerous substance under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher[10] When he had relinquished control of the relevant land to a tenant, the agreement of tenancy also signed between both parties.

Furthermore, the Appellant had also awarded the Respondent for their loss that she accepted. So, in this case, there is no further determination needed.

Table of Cases

John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100

Table of Legislation

Landlord and Tenant Act [1954]

Tenancy agreements UK

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/renting-a-home/tenancy-agreements/

[1] John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5]  Tenancy agreements UK

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/renting-a-home/tenancy-agreements/

[6]  Landlord and Tenant Act [1954]

[7] op. cit. n 1.

[8] op. cit. n 1.

[9] Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100

[10] op. cit. n 1.