Team Code: T11

DMHSL FRESHERS’
MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Mr. Anand
(PETITIONER)
v.
Mr. Alan
(RESPONDENT)

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE.136 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
___________________________________________________________________________
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
COUNSEL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS FOR THE PETITIONER

RESPONDENT T-11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................3
I. BIBLIOGRAPHY: ………………………………..........................................................….3
II. INTERNET LINKS: ...........................................................................................................3
III. TABLE OF CASES: ..........................................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................................5
ISSUES RAISED ......................................................................................................................6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..............................................................................................7
PLEADINGS / ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .........................................................................8
1. THE USE OF WEEDICIDE WAS A NATURAL USE OF ALAN’S LAND .....................8
1.1 Ingredients for being a non-natural use ...…………………………………………………9

2. ALL THE ELEMENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY ARE NOT SATISFIED …………….10

2.1 Reasonable foreseeability cannot be applied in this case, it was an inevitable accident ..11

3. DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY CANNOT BE OBTAINED ………......………12

2.1 The act of spraying weedicide was done in necessity…………………………….……...12

2.2 Mr. Alan has not been negligent in his actions ………………………….………………13

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................14

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 1 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. A.I.R: All India Reporter

2. All ER: All England Law Report
3. Co. : Company
4. Corp: Corporation
5. E-coli: Escherichia coli
6. Etc: Et Cetera
7. H.L: House of Lords
8. Hon’ble: Honourable
9. L.R: Law Report
10. Ltd.: Limited
11. S.C: Supreme Court
12. v: Versus

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 2 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, Lexis Nexis, 28th edn.
2. Dr.R.K.Bangai, Law of Torts.

II. INTERNET LINKS:

1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com
2. https://lawctopus.com
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/blog/
4. https://www.healthline.com/
5. https://www.businessinsider.com/
6. https://www.findlaw.com/
7. https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_law-for-entrepreneurs/s10-04-strict-
liability.html

III. TABLE OF CASES

1. Rickards v. Lothian (1913), AC 263:108 LT 225 : 29 TLR 281 (PC).

2. Stephens v Anglian Water Authority, (1987) 3 All ER 379 (CA).

3. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330.

4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), A.I.R 1987 S.C 1086

5. Pellman v. McDonald’s Corp, 237 F.2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 3 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS, MR.ALAN, HEREBY HUMBLY

SUBMIT TO THIS HON’BLE COURT’S JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF UNION OF INDIA.

THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS SPECIAL

LEAVE FOR APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 4 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mr. Alan is a software engineer working at RCS Software Co. Ltd. in Mumbai. He resides
in the posh locality of Heera Housing Colony. His neighbour is Mr. Anand, a businessman.
Their houses are adjacent to each other and the gardens are separated by a wooden fence. Mr.
Alan has a hobby of raising different types of flowering plants in his garden and had a heart
shaped flower bed adjacent to the wooden fence, on the other hand Mr. Anand was fond of
growing vegetables which lay alongside the fence.

2. In the rainy season a lot a weed started growing in and around the flower bed, to get rid of
them Mr. Alan purchased a powerful weed killer called ‘KillerX’. Since it was a poisonous
substance there were express warnings on the can which stated that ‘KillerX was poisonous to
humans and also clearly stated “wash hands thoroughly after use”.

3. Mr. Alan sprayed ‘KillerX’ liberally on this flower beds. However, later that day, rain
washed some of the weed killer under the fence onto Anands’ vegetable patch which currently
consisted of a patch of Spinach. The crop was eventually consumed by the Anand Family. The
following day Mr. Anand’s 12-year-old son, Aakash Anand, began to complain of stomach
pain and was later admitted into the hospital due to his deteriorating condition. The medical
evidence conclusively traced the cause of the illness to the weedicide.

4. An action was brought on behalf of Aakash Anand by Mr. Anand against Mr. Alan.

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 5 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

ISSUES RAISED

1 WHETHER THE USE OF WEEDICIDE WAS A NON-NATURAL USE OF ALAN’S LAND?

2 WHETHER ALL ELEMENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY WERE SATISFIED OR NOT?

2.1 WHETHER ALL ELEMENTS ARE SATISFIED IN TOTO?

2.2 WHETHER REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY IS APPLIED IN THIS CASE?

3 WHETHER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY CAN BE OBTAINED?

3.1 WHETHER MR. ALAN WAS NEGLIGENT IN HIS ACTIONS?

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 6 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1 WHETHER THE USE OF WEEDICIDE WAS A NON-NATURAL USE OF ALAN’S LAND?

The counsel humbly submits that Alan didn’t intentionally grew weed in his land but the
weed grew on his land and to prevent that the weedicide was used thus, concluding it was
natural use of land.

2 WHETHER ALL ELEMENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY WERE SATISFIED OR NOT?

The counsel humbly submits that all the elements of strict liability were not satisfied as in this
case, weedicide was not used as a dangerous substance but it was used to curb the greater
harm which is used to kill the weeds. The weedicide washed onto the spinach patch from
Alan’s land, hence, escape occurred.

2.1 WHETHER ALL ELEMENTS ARE NOT SATISFIED IN TOTO?

The counsel humbly submits that all elements are not satisfied in toto as mentioned above
because, act of God is a kind of inevitable accident with the difference that in the case of act
of God, the resulting loss arises out of the working of natural forces like rainfall, storms,
tempests, tides and volcanic eruptions which is not in control of our hands.

2.2 WHETHER REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY IS APPLIED IN THIS CASE?

The counsel humbly submits that it was an inevitable accident which was not foreseeable
despite all care and caution that he would have taken from his side as the rains would have
bound to wash the vegetable patch.

3 WHETHER DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY CAN BE OBTAINED?

The counsel humbly submits that in this case, personal injury was not caused by the
defendant but by negligence of the plaintiff, damages cannot be claimed for personal injury
by the defendant as injury is due to the natural forces like rain.
3.1 WHETHER MR. ALAN WAS NEGLIGENT IN HIS ACTIONS?
The counsel humbly submits that Anand’s family was negligent for not washing the spinach
and hands throughly before consumption and even though the entire family had consumed the
spinach only Aakash suffered with stomach pain.

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 7 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

PLEADINGS/ ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1. THE USE OF WEEDICIDE WAS A NATURAL USE OF ALAN’S LAND:-

It is humbly submitted that, in the landmark case of Rickards v. Lothian 1 , Lord

Moultan stated that “non-natural use” must be some special use bringing with it into
play increased damage to others and must not be merely the ordinary use of land. It
was also stated that the concept of non-natural use is flexible. A particular use which
was non-natural, a century back may be deemed as natural in present scenario. In the
impugned case, it is common prudence that if in flowering beds, a poisonous
substance like weedicide was used to remove the weed that is illegal and harmful to
the soil therefore, amounting to natural use of Alan’s land.

1.1 Ingredients for being a non-natural use:-

As derived from the statement given in the case of Rickards v. Lothian 1 for any act
or usage that was done on the land and is to be proved “non-natural” use of land the
following factors must be considered

For the use to be non natural it “must be some special use bringing with it increased
danger to others, and must not merely by ordinary use of land or which is not proper
for the general benefit of the community.” For instance, if you grow a tree on your
land, it is natural use of land but if you grow a poisonous tree on your land that is non-
natural use of land. The counsel humbly submits that similarly, here, non-natural use
of land can be said if the defendant had actually planted weed on his land but in this
case, he didn’t intentionally grew weed in his land but the weed grew on his land and
to prevent that the weedicide was used thus, concluding it was natural use of land.
Thus, use of weedicide, here is natural use of Alan’s land, it was done for the general
benefit and to avoid weed which is illegal and harmful to the soil that was growing in
and around the flowering beds.

1 Rickards v. Lothian (1913), AC 263:108 LT 225 : 29 TLR 281 (PC)

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 8 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

In Stephens v Anglian Water Authority2 , it was held that it has been recently
reiterated ‘that a landowner is entiled to exercise his right no obstruct subterranean
water lowing in undefined channels under his land regardiess "consequences, whether
physical or pecuniary, to his neighbours and regardless of his motive or intention or
whether he anticipated damage. In this view, it was held that a landowner was not
liable to his neighbour, whose land subsided damaging her house, for extraction of
underground water despite warning that it was likely to result in collapse of
neighbouring land. But this case also brings forward the necessity of change in law by
judicial decision or legislation as modern methods of extraction of underground water
without any restriction may bring down the water level in the neighbouring area to
such an extent as to dry up all the wells and seriously affect life and vegetation in the
neighbourhood.

2 Stephens v Anglian Water Authority, (1987) 3 All ER 379 (CA)

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 9 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

2. ALL THE ELEMENTS OF STRICT LIABILITY ARE NOT SATISFIED

There are situations when a person may be liable for some harm even though he is not
negligent in causing the same; or there is no intention to cause the harm, or sometimes
he may even have made some positive efforts to avert the same. In other words,
sometimes the law recognizes Strict liability as 'No fault' liability. In this connection,
the rules laid down in two cases, firstly, in the decision of the House of Lords in
Rylands v. Fletcher3, (1868) and, secondly, in the decision of the Supreme Court of
India in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India4, (1987) may be noted.
The rule laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher is generally known as the 'Rule in Rylands
v. Fletcher' or 'Rule of Strict Liability'. Because of the various exceptions to the
applicability of this rule, it would be preferable to call it the rule of Strict Liability,
rather than the rule of Absolute Liability.

The essentials for the applicability of rule of strict liability can be summarised as
follows:

Presence of Dangerous thing:

The first essential requirement for applicability of rule is the presence of a dangerous
thing. What is dangerous may depend on facts and circumstances of the case. Some of
the examples of dangerous things are: poisonous trees, explosives, noxious fumes,
rusty wire, etc. The counsel humbly submits that although weedicide is harmful, here
it cannot be an element to strict liability as it was done to prevent the fertility of the
soil by killing the weed which itself is harmful for the crops.

Escape:

Another requirement for the applicability of strict liability rule is the escape of
dangerous thing bought by the defendant. "The thing must escape to the area outside

3 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330.
4 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), A.I.R 1987 S.C 1086

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 10 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

the occupation and control of the defendant." The counsel humbly submits that
weedicide washed onto the spinach patch from Alan’s land, hence, escape occurred.

Non-natural use of land:

Third element that is non-natural use of land has been dealt previously in the first
contention, thus, there is a natural use of Alan’s land.

Therefore, all the elements are not satisfied in toto because, act of god is a defence
that states the rule of strict liability, i.e, the rule in “Rylands v. Fletcher" also
recognizes this to be a valid defence for the purpose of liability under that rule. Act of
God is a kind of inevitable accident with the difference that in the case of act of God,
the resulting loss arises out of the working of natural forces like rainfall, storms,
tempests, tides and volcanic eruptions which is not in control of our hands.

2.1 Reasonable foreseeability cannot be applied in this case, it was an inevitable

accident:-

The inevitable accident is also known as unavoidable accident says that a person
cannot be held liable for an accident which was not foreseeable despite all caution and
care taken from his side.

The counsel humbly submits that, as weed is considered as illegal and harmful to the
soil substance that was found in Alan’s land, there was a necessity to stop the growth
of weed by spraying weedicide. Also, if the rains had caused the weedkiller wash the
vegetable patch, the weed could have also washed on the vegetable causing it the
same. Therefore, it was an inevitable accident which was not foreseeable despite all
care and caution that he would have taken from his side as the rains would have
bound to wash the vegetable patch.

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 11 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

3. DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURY CANNOT BE CLAIMED

Personal injury are legal injury that arise when one person suffers harm from an
accident or injury, and someone else might be legally responsible for that harm.

The counsel humbly submits that in this case, personal injury was not caused by the
defendant but by negligence of the plaintiff, damages cannot be claimed for personal
injury by the defendant as injury is due to the natural forces like rain.

3.1 The act of spraying weedicide was done in necessity:-

Necessity as a defence is defined under section 81 in Indian Penal Code as:

“Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.
— Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it
is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and
in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or
property.”

The defendant humbly submits that weed itself is illegal and harmful to the soil which
started growing in Alan’s land and to avoid that, weedicide was used even though
weedicide is poisonous, it was done in good faith and to avoid greater harm but due to
the rainfall, the weedicide washed under the fence onto one of the Anand’s vegetable
patch of spinach.

3.2 Mr. Alan has not been negligent in his actions:-

Negligence is a civil tort which occurs when a person breaches his duty of care which
he owed to another due to which that other person suffers some hard or undergoes
some legal injury.

The counsel humbly submits that if the weedicide was not sprayed or if the weeds
would have escaped, it would intend to cause more dangerous harm rather killing
weeds through weedicide was a prevention to that harm which was taken into action

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 12 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

resulting that there was no negligence by the defendant. Thus, Alan acted in prudent
manner with reasonable care and caution while spraying weedicide only in his own
flowering beds.

The level of weedicides can be reduced by cooking or processing foods. Peeling or

trimming of fruits and vegetables can also remove weedicides residues from the outer
skin. According to 2010’s review study, weedicides level were reduced by 10-80% by
a variety of cooking and food processing methods. Another analysis found that
washing with tap water (even without special soaps or detergents) reduces weedicides
levels by 60-70%.

In Pellman v. McDonald’s Corp5, it was held that “If the parents of obese teenagers
bring a lawsuit against McDonald’s, claiming that its fast-food products are defective
and that McDonald’s should have warned customers of the adverse health effects of
eating its products, a defense based on the knowledgeable user is available. In one
case, the court found that the high levels of cholesterol, fat, salt, and sugar in
McDonald’s food is well known to users. The court stated, “If consumers know (or
reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonald’s, they
cannot blame McDonald’s if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a
surfeit of supersized McDonald’s products.”

Similarly, the condition of spinach that is taken from such sandy soil so needs to be
washed. Thus, one cannot eat spinach without washing. Hence, Anand’s family was
negligent for not washing the spinach and hands throughly before consumption.

According to the sources,

Contaminated spinach typically harbors norovirus — the common stomach bug linked
with vomiting and diarrhea — and sometimes carries E. coli as well.

5 Pellman v. McDonald’s Corp, 237 F.2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 13 of 15

RESPONDENT T-11

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited it is
most humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and declare that:

1. The respondent would like to humbly submit article 136 of the Constitution of India
that is special leave for appeal is not maintainable.
2. Although there was non-natural use of land, it was to prevent greater harm from
weeds and to prevent the harm to the fertility of soil.
3. Anand’s family was negligent for not washing the spinach and hands throughly before
consumption and even though the entire family had consumed the spinach only
Aakash suffered with stomach pain.
4. Damages for personal injury cannot be claimed by the defendant as injury is itself
caused by the plaintiff.

All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted.

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.
S/d-

- Counsel on the behalf for the Defendant

~MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS~ Page 14 of 15