Hoss owns Sweet Acres Farm. She permitted Cecily, a veterinary surgeon, to keep horses on a paddock in the middle of Sweet Acres. To Hoss' knowledge, the horses had contracted a newly discovered and very contagious horse disease, which Cecily wished to observe to learn how to combat it. Hoss let Sweet Acres, under a monthly tenancy, to Cecily who retained the horses in the paddock, also to Hoss' knowledge. Under its terms, there was no express provision for Hoss to enter Sweet Acres for any purpose during the continuance of the tenancy.

Spores carrying the disease were windborne to the neighbouring Green Acres Orchard owned by Adam. As a result, Adam contracted the disease and suffered permanent lung damage. Cecily died shortly afterwards.

Adam sued Hoss. Rowan J. awarded him 50,000 damages. She held that on the facts, although it was foreseeable that the disease could harm any human being whom it affected, a reasonable person could not reasonably have foreseen that spores could be windborne as far as the neighbouring farm. Therefore, Hoss was not liable in negligence; keeping the horses on Sweet Acres did not constitute a nuisance.

However, keeping the horses on Sweet Acres was a non-natural use of that land and the disease was something inherently likely to cause harm to humans or animals if it escaped. Therefore, Hoss was strictly liable under the rule inRylands v Fletcher. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision of Rowan J.

Hoss appeals to the Supreme Court on the grounds that:

(1) Hoss should not have been held liable for the escape of a dangerous substance under the rule inRylands v. Fletcherwhen he had relinquished control of the relevant land to a tenant.

(2) Strict liability under the rule inRyland v. Fletchershould not have been applied so as to create lability for personal injuries suffered by a person.

You must act for the respondent (Adam).

QUESTION - Considering the first issue, how would I tackle that in a moot skeleton argument? What arguments can I make if acting for the respondent refuting the appeal?