Ferae naturae: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{Quote|... those ''[[ferae naturae]]'', e.g. [[tiger]]s and [[lion]]s which a man keeps at his peril.}} | {{Quote|... those ''[[ferae naturae]]'', e.g. [[tiger]]s and [[lion]]s which a man keeps at his peril.}} | ||
A chap who keeps lions and tigers does so at his peril, and should they escape and cause damage to (for which, presumably, read “eat”) his [[ | A chap who keeps lions and tigers does so at his peril, and should they escape and cause damage to (for which, presumably, read “eat”) his [[neighbour]] the ordinary principles of {{casenote|Rylands|Fletcher}} will apply. | ||
In fact as I recall the escaping water in Rylands|Fletcher was | In fact as I recall the escaping water in {{casenote|Rylands|Fletcher}} was classified, in the eyes of the law, as a variety of wild animal. But I might be misremembering that. | ||
{{C|egg}} | {{C|egg}} | ||
Revision as of 14:24, 4 November 2016
In Latin, “by its nature, wild”.
To be contrasted with animals mansuetae naturae, animals are, in the immortal words of Darling, J., in Manton v Brocklebank:
... those ferae naturae, e.g. tigers and lions which a man keeps at his peril.
A chap who keeps lions and tigers does so at his peril, and should they escape and cause damage to (for which, presumably, read “eat”) his neighbour the ordinary principles of Rylands v Fletcher will apply.
In fact as I recall the escaping water in Rylands v Fletcher was classified, in the eyes of the law, as a variety of wild animal. But I might be misremembering that.