Question

Apply the given legal principles to the facts provided in the following of the question and select the most appropriate answer.
Principle : When a defendant brings onto their land anything that is likely to do mischief in case it escapes, they must do so at their own peril. If such a thing does escape and causes foreseeable harm, then the defendant is liable for damage caused provided that the land from which escape occurs had been changed such that it would be considered a non-natural use of the land.
The defendant can avoid liability if they can show that the situation that caused damage was a result of an unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not be controlled by the defendant.
Facts : M decided to keep a tiger as a pet and to that end, he brought a caged tiger to his house. Jealous of M’s pet, M’s neighbour S (whom M had never met) decided to break into M’s heavily guarded house while M was away and open the tiger’s cage. The tiger escaped and mauled pedestrians near the house. The pedestrians wish to sue M for damages.

• A. The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a pet
• B. The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by M
• C. M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by M
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

M's liability hinges on the principle that if someone brings something likely to cause harm onto their land, they are liable if it escapes and causes damage, provided this constitutes a non-natural use of land. In this scenario, keeping a tiger as a pet is indeed a non-natural use of land. However, the principle also specifies an exception: if harm is the result of an unforeseeable act by a stranger, the defendant can avoid liability.
The facts show M's neighbor, whom M had never met, deliberately broke into M’s house and released the tiger. This action qualifies as an unforeseeable act by a stranger. Therefore, M could not have foreseen nor controlled this act, allowing him to escape liability.
Among the options:

1	The pedestrians will be successful because it is illegal to keep a tiger as a pet
2	The pedestrians can claim against M because he brought a dangerous thing onto his land (amounting to non-natural use) and it escaped, causing foreseeable damage. The escape should have been foreseen by M
3	M can escape liability because the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger, which could not have been controlled by M
4	None of the above

The correct answer is option 3 as it aligns with the principle, underlining M's immunity due to the unforeseeable, uncontrollable act by a stranger.