I love your content and the way you explain things. I just want to add that I doubt if the pitbull for example, will succeed in Ryland now because defendant might argue domestication of the dogs and hence not non-natural to the environment. Furthermore, Ryland has expanded with case like Cambridge Water and Read v Lyon. which might give the defendant Remoteness as defence. The other thing that needs mentioning is causation; Novus Actus Interveniens - all the things mentioned may happen but if another person influence it in one way or another, Novus acts can break the chain and Ryland will fail. In terms of Remedy, Ryland also hardly hardly compensate for personal injury and most of your examples include injuries. the actual of Ryland itself is a strict liability and it did not include injury to a person. I'd love to learn more from you. Thanks.
Supposing the Bees are in the house and a visitor comes to the house and the Bees beat the visitor, here there is no escape of the Bees but the mischief happened on the same compound . Can the rule apply here ? I want to pursue LLB at university that is why am asking this
something should have triggered the bees biting. not until you know the trigger,you cant apply the rule. do you understand? if the visitor broke the hive and takes that to court for damages, that will be contributory negligence as defense
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Am Zambian and a law student,your presentations makes this concepts easy to understand and relate,thank you so much 🙏.
glad it helped
Fct@@supremelawpublication
Wow. Thank you for bringing law home to the ordinary man.
Our pleasure!
Amazing tutor. Keep it up
Thanks a lot!
The much awaited video, thank you Sir
Hope you enjoyed it!
God bless you Sir 🙏
Long-awaited video
You most welcome
Your elaboration is very very great,🔥🔥
Thank you so much 😀
Very educative prof
Thanks Mrs!
How I wish I knew this page when I was doing my LLB😂
We need you as our lecturer
VERY EDUCATIVE
Thank you so much .
You're most welcome
That was great 😃
Thanks
Insightful
Counsel please you do a video on scienter action
Good one
Thanks
This very inciteful
great
I love your content and the way you explain things. I just want to add that I doubt if the pitbull for example, will succeed in Ryland now because defendant might argue domestication of the dogs and hence not non-natural to the environment. Furthermore, Ryland has expanded with case like Cambridge Water and Read v Lyon. which might give the defendant Remoteness as defence. The other thing that needs mentioning is causation; Novus Actus Interveniens - all the things mentioned may happen but if another person influence it in one way or another, Novus acts can break the chain and Ryland will fail. In terms of Remedy, Ryland also hardly hardly compensate for personal injury and most of your examples include injuries. the actual of Ryland itself is a strict liability and it did not include injury to a person. I'd love to learn more from you. Thanks.
Supposing the Bees are in the house and a visitor comes to the house and the Bees beat the visitor, here there is no escape of the Bees but the mischief happened on the same compound .
Can the rule apply here ?
I want to pursue LLB at university that is why am asking this
something should have triggered the bees biting. not until you know the trigger,you cant apply the rule. do you understand? if the visitor broke the hive and takes that to court for damages, that will be contributory negligence as defense