|
Distress Damage Feasant
Distress damage feasant is a common law self-help legal remedy whereby a person who is in possession of land may impound a chattel which is wrongfully on that land to secure the payment of compensation for damage caused by it. It is part of the law relating to distraint. In some cases the party also has the right to sell the chattel. The chattel may be inanimate, or it may be an animal or livestock. Any livestock had to be distrained at the time, before they left the land. No cause in distress would stand if the landowner was in any way responsible for allowing the trespass, such as failing to fence off the land. The remedy principally relates instances of nuisance, and was often exercised in conjunction with certain strict liability In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defend ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Common Law
In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified," ''Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen'', 244 U.S. 205, 222 (1917) (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting). By the early 20th century, legal professionals had come to reject any idea of a higher or natural law, or a law above the law. The law arises through the act of a sovereign, whether that sovereign speaks through a legislature, executive, or judicial officer. The defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as precedent. Common law courts look to the past decisions of courts to synthesize the legal principles of past cases. '' Stare decisis'', the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Legal Remedy
A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual. In common law jurisdictions and mixed civil-common law jurisdictions, the law of remedies distinguishes between a legal remedy (e.g. a specific amount of monetary damages) and an equitable remedy (e.g. injunctive relief or specific performance). Another type of remedy available in these systems is declaratory relief, where a court determines the rights of the parties to action without awarding damages or ordering equitable relief. The type of legal remedies to be applied in specific cases depend on the nature of the wrongful act and its liability. In the legal system of the United States, there exists a traditional form of judicial remedies that serve ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Personal Property
property is property that is movable. In common law systems, personal property may also be called chattels or personalty. In civil law systems, personal property is often called movable property or movables—any property that can be moved from one location to another. Personal property can be understood in comparison to real estate, immovable property or real property (such as land and buildings). Movable property on land (larger livestock, for example) was not automatically sold with the land, it was "personal" to the owner and moved with the owner. The word ''cattle'' is the Old Norman variant of Old French ''chatel'', chattel (derived from Latin ''capitalis'', “of the head”), which was once synonymous with general movable personal property. Classifications Personal property may be classified in a variety of ways. Intangible Intangible personal property or "intangibles" refers to personal property that cannot actually be moved, touched or felt, but instead repre ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Distraint
Distraint or distress is "the seizure of someone’s property in order to obtain payment of rent or other money owed", especially in common law countries. Distraint is the act or process "whereby a person (the ''distrainor''), traditionally even without prior court approval, seizes the personal property of another located upon the distrainor's land in satisfaction of a claim, as a pledge for performance of a duty, or in reparation of an injury." Distraint typically involves the seizure of goods ( chattels) belonging to the tenant by the landlord to sell the goods for the payment of the rent. In the past, distress was often carried out without court approval. Today, some kind of court action is usually required, the main exception being certain tax authorities – such as HM Revenue and Customs in the United Kingdom and the Internal Revenue Service in the United States – and other agencies that retain the legal power to levy assets (by either seizure or distraint) without a court ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Nuisance In English Law
Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a laimants land or his/her use or enjoyment of that land", and public nuisance, where the defendant's actions "materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects"; public nuisance is also a crime. Both torts have been present from the time of Henry III, being affected by a variety of philosophical shifts through the years which saw them become first looser and then far more stringent and less protecting of an individual's rights. Each tort requires the claimant to prove that the defendant's actions caused interference, which was unreasonable, and in some situations the intention of the defendant may also be taken into account. A significant difference is that private nuisance does not allow a claimant to claim for any personal injury s ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Strict Liability
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Under the strict liability law, if the defendant possesses anything that is inherently dangerous, as specified under the "ultrahazardous" definition, the defendant is then strictly liable for any damages caused by such possession, no matter how careful the defendant is safeguarding them. In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals. Other than activities specified above (like ownership of wild animals, etc), US courts have historically considered the following activities as "ultrahazardous": # storing flammable liquids in quantity in an urban area # pile driving # b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rylands V Fletcher
''Rylands v Fletcher'' (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.Bohlen (1911) 300 Rylands employs contractors to build a reservoir. As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage (). Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands. At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in ''Rylan ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Cattle Trespass
Cattle trespass was an ancient common law tort whereby the keeper of livestock was held strictly liable for any damage caused by the straying livestock. Under English law the tort was abolished by section 1(1)(c) of the Animals Act 1971, but the tort continues to subsist in other common law jurisdictions, either in its original form as a common law tort, or as modified by statute. 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. History and development The first recorded writ for cattle trespass was issued during the reign of King John (1199-1216). However the tort initially related to the keeping of animals; it was not until 1353 it was expanded to cover liability caused by their escape. Since its inception, cattle trespass a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.png "Click for more on -> Common Law")
