Should Liability Exist for Pure Economic Loss in Rylands v Fletcher?
torts judiciary intermediate discussionAap log sochte hain ki woh case bahut purana hai, lekin agar main kya karta hoon? Main sochta hoon ki liability exist karna chahiye, especially jab bhi ek person apne actions se kisi aur ko financial zayda nuksan pahunchata hai. Ab yeh kyon? Kya aap logon ko pata hai ki vahan ke sabhi cases mein to liability to exist hota hai. Lekin agar pure economic loss mein bhi liability hota hai, toh yeh bhi ek form of damage hai. To phir kya wajah hai ki iska kuch bhi nahi hota? Aap log kya kehenge, aap sochte hain ki pure economic loss mein liability kyu nahi hona chahiye?
2 comments
2 Comments
Sign in to join the discussion.
Yeh question toh bahut complex hai! I think liability should exist for pure economic loss in Rylands v Fletcher. The principle of Rylands is based on the doctrine of nocturnal trespass, which doesn't limit itself to just physical damage. Economic loss can be a significant consequence of a hazardous activity, so why not hold the defendant accountable? It's time to broaden the scope of liability!
Meri opinion hai ki Rylands v Fletcher ki philosophy ke hisaab pure economic loss ke liye bhi liability hona chahiye. Yeh decision to safety valve ke roop mein kaam karti hai. Economic loss aise bhi ho sakta hai jiske liye koi physical damage nahin hota, lekin financial haani hoti hai. Isiliye, pure economic loss ke liye bhi liability hona chahiye.