Ms. Lam bought a lot next to a house owned by Mr. Dodson. She asked Mr. Dodson for permission to use his electricity while building a house on her property. He refused. He feared his house was too old to handle the electricity load needed. Later, a carpenter employed by Ms. Lam accidentally broke a window of Mr. Dodson's while moving lumber. Furthermore, the carpenter removed part of Dodson's fence to make room for needed materials, used Dodson' house to support the lumber and drove some nails into Dodson's tree to hold some wires. Dodson complained to Ms. Lam. Irritated by his stand on the electricity and his complaints, Lam began a civil action against him for the tort of defamation, although she had absolutely no grounds for alleging defamation. Which of the following is not supported by the facts given above?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Dodson's potential actions against Lam and the carpenter are based on trespass (for entering his property without permission and causing damage), vicarious liability (Lam being responsible for the actions of her carpenter), and negligence (the carpenter's careless behavior). The rule of Rylands v. Fletcher involves strict liability for the escape of something likely to do mischief if it escapes from one's land, which doesn't directly apply to the described actions of breaking a window, removing a fence, or using property to support lumber.

Ms Lam Bought a Lot Next to a House Owned