DOCSLIB.ORG

Winfield Tort

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Winfield Tort WINFIELD ON TORT EIGHTH EDITION BY J. A. JOLOWICZ, M.A. Of the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law; Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; Lecturer in Law of the University of Cambridge AND T. ELLIS LEWIS, B.A., LL.M., PH.D. Of Gray's Inn, Barrister-at-Law; Fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge; Lecturer in Law in the University of Cambridge LONDON SWEET & MAXWELL 4967 CONTENTS page Preface vii Table of Cases xiii Table of Statutes xlvii References to Year Books lv 1. MEANING OF THE LAW OF TORT 1 The Foundation of Tortious Liability .... 10 2. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TORTIOUS LIABILITY . 14 Act or Omission 16 Intention or Negligence or the Breach of a Strict Duty . 16 Motive and Malice 20 3. NOMINATE TORTS 24 4. TRESPASS TO THE PERSON . .27 Assault and Battery 27 False Imprisonment 32 Intentional Physical Harm other than Trespasses to the Person 40 5. NEGLIGENCE 42 Essentials of Negligence 42 Trespass to the Person and Negligence .... 76 6. REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE . 80 Remoteness of Damage 80 Contributory Negligence 102 7. NERVOUS SHOCK 118 8. BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY 128 The Existence of Liability 128 Elements of the Tort 134 Defences 138 Nature of the Action 140 9. EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY 143 Introductory 143 Common Law 147 Breach of Statutory Duty 158 Employers' Liability 164 10. LIABILITY FOR LAND AND STRUCTURES . .168 Introduction 168 The Common Law 169 The Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 177 ix X CONTENTS 10. LIABILITY FOR LAND AND STRUCTURES—continued Liability to Trespassers 192 Liability to Children 199 Liability of Non-Occupiers 207 11. LIABILITY FOR CHATTELS 212 Nature of the Liability 212 Incidence of the Liability 215 12. LIABILITY FOR STATEMENTS 226 Essentials of Deceit 227 Liability for Negligent Misstatement .... 236 13. DEFAMATION 254 Definition 254 Slander Actionable Per Se 260 Essentials of Defamation Generally .... 265 " Unintentional Defamation " within the Defamation Act 1952, s. 4 275 Defences 284 14. TRESPASS TO LAND 323 Trespass Defined 323 Possession 325 Interference 333 Defences 341 Remedies . 346 15. NUISANCE 353 Public and Private Nuisances 354 Nuisances to Servitudes 356 Essentials of Nuisance 357 Defences 391 Nuisance and Trespass to Land 395 Nuisance and Negligence 396 16. STRICT LIABILITY: THE RULE IN RYLANDS V. FLETCHER . 408 The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher 408 Scope of the Rule 413 Exceptions to the Rule 417 Relation of the Rule to Nuisance 433 Fire 437 17. STRICT LIABILITY: ANIMALS 446 Ordinary Liability in Tort 447 Cattle-Trespass 453 Liability under the Scienter Action .... 464 18. TRESPASS TO GOODS 481 19. CONVERSION AND OTHER INJURIES TO GOODS . 485 Historical 485 Detinue 488 CONTENTS Xi 19. CONVERSION AND OTHER INJURIES TO GOODS—continued Replevin 492 Conversion 493 Measure of Damages 516 20. INJURIES AFFECTING FAMILY AND SERVICE RELATIONSHIPS . 521 Husband and Wife 521 Parent and Child 527 Master and Servant 533 21. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT OR BUSINESS . .536 1. Interference with a subsisting contract . 537 2. Intimidation 546 3. Interference by unlawful means . .551 4. Conspiracy 554 5. Unlawful competition: Passing off .... 565 22. ABUSE OF LEGAL PROCEDURE 573 Malicious Prosecution 573 Malicious Civil Proceedings 584 Malicious Process 585 Maintenance and Champerty 585 23. MISCELLANEOUS AND DOUBTFUL TORTS . .593 Miscellaneous Torts ....... 593 Doubtful Torts 594 Doubtful Wrongs 595 24. DEATH IN RELATION TO TORT 603 Death as Extinguishing Liability 603 Death as Creating Liability 611 25. VICARIOUS LIABILITY 629 Master and Servant 629 The Master's Indemnity 647 Employer and Independent Contractor .... 649 The Basis of Vicarious Liability 654 The Reasons for Vicarious Liability .... 657 26. JOINT TORTFEASORS 659 27. REMEDIES 668 Part I. Damages 668 Kinds of Damages 673 Measure of Damages 676 Actions for Personal Injury 680 Loss of or Damage to Property 697 Part II. Other Remedies 701 28. CAPACITY 708 The State and its Subordinates 708 Minors 721 xii CONTENTS 28. CAPACITY—continued Married Women 725 Corporations 728 Clubs 731 Trade Unions 733 Persons of Unsound Mind 733 Convicts 735 Aliens 735 Persons Having Parental or Quasi-Parental Authority . 736 29. DEFENCES 740 30. EXTINCTION OF LIABILITY IN TORT 772 Waiver . 772 Accord and Satisfaction 776 Judgment . 778 Statutes of Limitation 779 Assignment of Right of Action in Tort . 790 Index 795.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Topic: LIABILITY UNDER the RULE in RYLANDS V FLETCHER IN
    1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of Research Liability under this topic is actually focused on the environmental liability in the construction industry which aims at making the perperator of environmental damage or the polluter to pay for remedying the damage that he has caused. Liability for environmental damage is an important part of any developed legal system. This study actually looks at the potential liabilities of owners, contractor and occupiers of land for damages caused to neighboring land under the common law, due to escapes from the defendant’s land of things with a known potential to cause damage, be that escape of chemicals, water and fire. The particular area of discussion is liability in the absence of 2 negligence under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.1 The rule seems to be very helpful in environmental cases, where damage is the result of escape of dangerous substances2. All this while, Malaysia has been overwhelmed by the occurrence of indiscriminate development, which, at best, resulted in redundancy and visually unpleasant construction activities and, at worst, caused overcrowding, squeezing out of open spaces and environmental degradation, with affiliated effects on public well-being and health. In recent years, the uptrend in the occurrence of floods in urban areas and pollution of our water resources arising from land-use related causes amongst other signs of environmental degeneration, serve to highlight the harshness of the problems of poor development planning, disregard of planning laws and inadequate policing of developers.3 The origin of the problem lies in the lack of coordination of planning policies within and amongst States and between the Federal and State governments.
    [Show full text]
  • An Alternative Application of the Rule in Rylands V Fletcher to ‘Ultra-Hazardous’ Activities
    A Thing Less Likely to Do Mischief: An Alternative Application of the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher to ‘Ultra-Hazardous’ Activities Ryan Chan-Wei* Introduction hrough the past century, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher1 has been the subject of much debate, to the point where Francis Bohlen commented that yet another analysis of Rylands v Fletcher T would merely be ‘a thrashing out of old straw’.2 Considering how crowded the field is, it might be difficult to see what value yet another article can add, let alone one by an undergraduate. However, I humbly suggest that there is still more to be said, especially with respect to how Rylands v Fletcher has been applied in the specific context of ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities. In particular, the English courts have not adopted a distinct approach3 in applying the rule in Rylands v Fletcher to ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities despite valid concerns raised to the contrary, 4 instead preferring to subject both ‘ultra- hazardous’ and non-ultra-hazardous’ activities to the same Rylands v Fletcher standard. This article will demonstrate that such a position can, and should, be rethought. 1. Overview The existing debate concerning Rylands v Fletcher liability for ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities has largely been framed as a stark choice between two polarities, to the point where it was once described as ‘a storm centre’.5 On the one hand, some see Rylands v Fletcher as an opportunity to impose a blanket rule of strict liability for ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities, by embracing the enterprise liability approach that has significantly shaped American tort law, and leaving the non-‘ultra-hazardous’ Rylands v Fletcher cases to negligence.6 On the other hand, some see the principle as obsolete, arguing instead that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is an anachronism in light of the development of the fault principle and that it should be subsumed into the broader tort of negligence, even in the context of ‘ultra-hazardous’ activities, as the Australian courts have done.7 In contrast, this article will suggest that a middle ground can be found.
    [Show full text]
  • Liability for Injury Caused by the Emission of Noxious Gases - Wright V
    Maryland Law Review Volume 28 | Issue 1 Article 5 Liability For Injury Caused By The miE ssion Of Noxious Gases - Wright v. Masonite Corporation Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Liability For Injury Caused By The Emission Of Noxious Gases - Wright v. Masonite Corporation, 28 Md. L. Rev. 33 (1968) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol28/iss1/5 This Casenotes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comments and Casenotes Liability For Injury Caused By The Emission Of Noxious Gases Wright v. Masonite Corporation' In an action to recover damages for the loss of grocery stock which had been contaminated by the infiltration of formaldehyde gas from defendant's manufacturing plant. which was located approximately 200 feet from the plaintiff's store, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Cir- cuit held that the defendant was not liable in nuisance since the invasion was neither intentional nor negligent. The majority of the court stated that under North Carolina law the doctrine of Rylands v. Fletcher2 was inapplicable to non-ultrahazardous activities and that the rules of the Restatement of Torts governing liability for nuisance would be applied. Restatement § 822' provides that a defendant is liable in nuisance for a non-trespassory invasion of another's interest in land only if the invasion had been both intentional and unreasonable, or unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules governing negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • (ABSOLUTE) LIABILITY TORTS • General Rule
    STRICT (ABSOLUTE) LIABILITY TORTS • General rule: • A defendant may be held liable in the absence of an intention to act or negligence in acting IF his conduct (or the conduct of those with whom he shares a special legal relationship) causes the Plaintiff loss or injury. • Strict liability: • Under the doctrine of strict liability, the Defendant may be held liable without acting intentionally, carelessly or unreasonably • In some instances, defences can be raised • (eg): employers are liable for the actions of their employees if they commit an act that results in loss or injury during the course and scope of their employment • Absolute liability: • Commission of a certain act serves as proof of a Tortious action resulting in liability • The essential issue is causation and not fault • There are no defences that can be raised • Vicarious Liability: • Several forms of vicarious liability: 1) Statutory Vicarious liability - (s192 Ontario Highway Traffic Act) – an owner of a vehicle accepts liability for any other driver using it with their knowledge - (Yeung v Au) 2) Principal/Agent relationship - A principal may be held liable for the Torts committed by an agent 3) Employer/Employee relationship - A Court can hold an employer liable, and an employee personally liable. - The doctrine of vicarious liability provides the Plaintiff with an alternative source of relief – this does not mean that the employee is relieved of responsibility. • I.R.A.C: (employer/employee relationship) • Issue: - The question is whether … (BASED ON THE EXAM PAPER…!!!) • Rule: - a Court can hold an employer vicariously liable, and an employee personally liable for the actions of the employee.
    [Show full text]
  • Causation - in Context: an Afterword
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1987 Causation - In Context: An Afterword Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "Causation - In Context: An Afterword," 63 Chicago-Kent Law Review 653 (1987). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CAUSATION-IN CONTEXT: AN AFTERWORD RICHARD A. EPSTEIN* The four principal papers in this symposium illustrate the rich di- versity of approaches that may be taken toward the question of causa- tion-long and rightly regarded as one of the central issues in the law. In this afterword, I shall address myself to some of the recurrent questions of causation that intrude themselves into the legal, economic and philo- sophical account of the subject. The purpose of this paper is to give some indication of the proper place that causation has in a comprehensive the- ory of tort law, indeed of civil obligation. The task, then, is to place causation back into the context from which it is all too often wrenched. In order to do that it is necessary to recanvass, in some degree, the major issues of tort law. Accordingly, the first section addresses the question of whether it is possible to have a baseline of property rights which distinguishes violence from competition, and thus allows the emer- gence of a theory of tort liability that depends heavily on causal concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Cattle Tresspass
    CATTLE TRESSPASS The owner of the capital may be held liable if his cattle commit trespass on the land of another person. It is an ancient common law tort whereby the keeper of livestock was held strictly liable for any damage caused by the straying livestock. The liability in such case is strict and the owner of the cattle is liable even if the vicious propensity of the cattle and, owner’s knowledge of the same are not proved. There is also no necessity of proving negligence on the part of the defendant. Liability for cattle trespass is similar to, but conceptually distinct from, the old common law scienter action in relation to strict liability for animals which are known to be vicious. In many of the reported cases, claims for cattle trespass and scienter are pleaded in the alternative. Cattle for the purpose include bulls, cows, sheep, pigs, horses, asses and poultry. Dogs and cats are not included in the term and, therefore there cannot be cattle trespass by dogs and cats. In Buckle v. Holmes,1 the defendant’s cat strayed into the plaintiff’s land and there it killed thirteen pigeons and two bantams. Killing of birds was nothing peculiar to this cat alone, therefore, the liability under the scienter rule did not arise. There was no liability even for cattle trespass because cat is no ‘cattle’ for the purpose of this rule. The same is the position in case of a dog.2 The liability for cattle trespass is strict, scienter or negligence on the part of the owner of the cattle is not required to be proved.
    [Show full text]
  • Cattle Trespass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 5 Volume 46, Number 2 (Summer 2008) Containing the GMO Genie: Cattle rT espass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners Katie Black James Wishart Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Environmental Law Commons Commentary Citation Information Black, Katie and Wishart, James. "Containing the GMO Genie: Cattle rT espass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 46.2 (2008) : 397-425. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol46/iss2/5 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Containing the GMO Genie: Cattle rT espass and the Rights and Responsibilities of Biotechnology Owners Abstract Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have caused substantial economic losses by contaminating non- GMO crops and threatening the economic self-determination of non-GMO farmers. After Monsanto v. Schmeiser, biotech IP owners hold most of the rights in the property "bundle" with respect to bioengineered organisms. This commentary highlights the disequilibrium between these broad patent rights and the lack of legal responsibility for harms caused by GMO products. The uthora s propose that there is a role for tort law-- specifically the tort of cattle trespass--in fairly allocating risk and responsibility. The doctrine of cattle trespass reflects a policy of distributive justice, positing that the unique risks associated with keeping living creatures ought to import liability based on the owner's creation and control of those risks.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Privacy's Place in the Intellectual History of Tort Law
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 41 Issue 3 Article 11 1991 The Right to Privacy's Place in the Intellectual History of Tort Law David W. Leebron Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David W. Leebron, The Right to Privacy's Place in the Intellectual History of Tort Law, 41 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 769 (1991) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol41/iss3/11 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY'S PLACE IN THE INTELLECTUAL HISTORY OF TORT LAW David W Leebron* FEW DOCTRINAL INNOVATIONS in the history of the common law can be precisely dated.1 However, as suggested by this symposium, the right to privacy is commonly dated2 to the publication of Warren and Brandeis's article, The Right to Pri- vacy 3 Yet one hundred years later there remain many questions regarding the legal status of privacy What was the conceptual basis of the right to privacy 9 What was its theoretical and histori- cal pedigree? And what was its destiny 9 This essay seeks to provide an answer to some of these ques- tions from one particular perspective, that of tort theory After all, what presumably has made the article so influential, so deserving of a centenary, is that it created a new tort.
    [Show full text]
  • Rylands V Fletcher
    1868 WL 9885 Page 1 (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 © 2010 Sweet & Maxwell Rylands v Fletcher Also known as: Fletcher v Rylands House of Lords 17 July 1868 Case Analysis Where Reported (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330; Case Digest Subject: Real property Keywords: Causes of action, Damage, Land drainage, Mines, Neighbouring land, Negligence Abstract: Judges: Lord Cairns, L.C.Cairns, Lord, LC Appellate History affirming (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 reversing (1865-66) L.R. 1 Ex. 265; [1865-66] All E.R. Rep. 1; (1866) 4 Hurl. & C. 263 159 E.R. 737; (1865) 3 Hurl. & C. 774 Related Cases Significant Cases Cited St Helens Smelting Co v Tipping 11 E.R. 1483; (1865) 11 H.L. Cas. 642 HL Allen v Hayward © 2010 Thomson Reuters. 1868 WL 9885 Page 2 (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 115 E.R. 749; (1845) 7 Q.B. 960 QB In re Williams v Groucott 122 E.R. 416; (1863) 4 B. & S. 149 KB Smith v Kenrick 137 E.R. 205; (1849) 7 C.B. 515 QB Imperial Gas Light and Coke Co v Broadbent 11 E.R. 239; (1859) 7 H.L. Cas. 600 QB Bamford v Turnley 122 E.R. 25; (1860) 3 B. & S. 62 KB Pickard v Smith 142 E.R. 535; (1861) 10 C.B. N.S. 470 CCP Chadwick v Trower 133 E.R. 1; (1839) 6 Bing. N.C. 1 CCP Sutton v Clarke 128 E.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Holding Compromised Internet Platforms Strictly Liable Under the Doctrine of Abnormally Dangerous Activities
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Volume 22 Issue 2 Article 6 12-1-2020 Too Dangerous to Exist: Holding Compromised Internet Platforms Strictly Liable Under the Doctrine of Abnormally Dangerous Activities Jordan Glassman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncjolt Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jordan Glassman, Too Dangerous to Exist: Holding Compromised Internet Platforms Strictly Liable Under the Doctrine of Abnormally Dangerous Activities, 22 N.C. J.L. & TECH. 293 (2020). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/vol22/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 22, ISSUE 2: DECEMBER 2020 TOO DANGEROUS TO EXIST : HOLDING COMPROMISED INTERNET PLATFORMS STRICTLY LIABLE UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES Jordan Glassman * In July 2020, the Twitter accounts of several prominent public figures were compromised. The maximally high profile of these targets raises the possibility of severe physical, or, more likely, economic damages from the fallout of these security failures. Because compromises of this type are foreseeable and inevitable in the context of software security, and because there is no feasible avenue for seeking damages for the resulting purely economic losses, a new scheme for relief is needed. This Article proposes that the doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities be applied to internet platforms whose inevitable compromises are situated to proximately cause catastrophic economic damages.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering Rylands: an Essay for Robert Rabin
    DePaul Law Review Volume 61 Issue 2 Winter 2012: Symposium - Festschrift Article 10 for Robert Rabin Recovering Rylands: An Essay for Robert Rabin Gregory C. Keating Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Gregory C. Keating, Recovering Rylands: An Essay for Robert Rabin, 61 DePaul L. Rev. 543 (2012) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol61/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECOVERING RYLANDS: AN ESSAY FOR ROBERT RABIN Gregory C. Keating* INTRODUCTION Professor Robert Rabin's discussion of Rylands v. Fletcher appears as something of an aside in a lovely and influential article on the rise of fault liability. That article-The Historical Development of the Fault Principle:A Reinterpretation'-isone among a number of influ- ential, widely admired papers that Rabin has written on central topics in the law of torts.2 This Festschrift has provided the pleasurable op- portunity to revisit several of these papers and to discover that they are even richer and more instructive than I remembered. We-or at least I-remember important papers by recalling their fundamental claims and insights. There is much to be said for this form of mental indexing, but one of its costs is forgetting the enormous richness of genuinely distinguished papers. The best papers resist reduction even to their general lessons.
    [Show full text]
  • JIJUN YIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, Vs. PI
    ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000325 09-MAR-2020 10:49 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII ---o0o--- JIJUN YIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. P.I. AGUIAR, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF VIRGINIO C. AGUIAR, JR., DECEASED, KEVIN AGUIAR and AGEE, INC., Respondents/Defendants-Appellees. SCWC-15-0000325 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-15-0000325; CIV. NO. 11-1-0331) MARCH 9, 2020 RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ. OPINION OF THE COURT BY POLLACK, J. In this case, the Petitioner filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (circuit court) alleging that the Respondent’s cattle trespassed onto his property causing damage to his sweet potato crop. In granting the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, the circuit court concluded that ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** the Petitioner’s land was neither “properly fenced” nor “unfenced,” and therefore Hawaii’s statutory law governing the trespass of livestock onto cultivated land did not apply to the Petitioner’s property. Further, the circuit court determined that a provision in the Petitioner’s lease, making the Petitioner fully responsible for keeping cattle out of his cultivated land, was not void against public policy. The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. Upon review of the legislative history of the statutes that govern the trespass of livestock onto the cultivated land of another, we conclude that the legislature intended to hold owners of livestock liable for the damage caused by the trespass of their animals on cultivated land whether the land is properly fenced or not.
    [Show full text]