Question

A person is liable to compensate others for harm caused by the escape of any inherently dangerous material that he keeps on his land.
Fact Situation: Ankit lights a bonfire in his courtyard to warm himself up during a cold winter evening. A strong wind suddenly blows some sparks from the fire, on to his neighbour’s house which catches fire and gets completely destroyed.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

• A. Ankit’s neighbour is liable to Ankit for distress caused by keeping a house that catches fire so quickly.
• B. Ankit is not liable because nobody could foresee that the sudden wind will blow the sparks to cause a fire.
• C. Ankit’s neighbour cannot make Ankit liable for the loss of his house since it was an accidental fire that destroyed it.
• D. Ankit is liable to compensate because the fire escaped from his premises to burn down his neighbour’s house.

Hint:

In strict liability cases, the focus is on the escape of a dangerous thing from one’s premises — not on the foreseeability or negligence of the person.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the legal principle
- The principle is based on the doctrine of strict liability (Rylands v. Fletcher rule).
- If an inherently dangerous thing kept on one’s land escapes and causes damage to another, the person keeping it is liable — even without proof of negligence.

Step 2: Application to the given facts
- Here, the inherently dangerous thing is the bonfire.
- Sparks from the bonfire escaped Ankit’s premises due to strong wind and set fire to the neighbour’s house.
- Since the damage was caused by the escape of the dangerous element from Ankit’s property, liability is established.

Step 3: Elimination of incorrect options
- Option (1) is incorrect — the neighbour is the victim, not the wrongdoer.
- Option (2) is incorrect — foreseeability is not essential under strict liability.
- Option (3) is incorrect — even if accidental, strict liability applies.

Step 4: Conclusion
- Ankit must compensate the neighbour because the fire from his premises caused the destruction of the neighbour’s property.

\[ \boxed{\text{Ankit\ is\ liable\ under\ the\ principle\ of\ strict\ liability.}} \]