Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

Visakhapatnam
MOOT & ADVOCACY SOCIETY
10th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2022

MOOT PROBLEM

Mrs. Puja Sharma is a software developer working at M/s Jodrej in Mumbai, Maharashtra. She

resides in the posh locality called Juhu. Her neighbour is Mr. Oberoi, a businessman. Their

houses are adjacent to each other and their gardens are separated by a wooden fence. Mrs.

Sharma has a hobby of raising different types of flowering plants in her garden and had a

beautiful flower bed Tulip buds adjacent to the wooden fence. On the other hand. Mr. Oberoi

was fond of animals and would usually walk his dog ‘Shelby’ in his garden. In the rainy season

a lot of weeds started growing in and around the flower bed, to get rid of them, Mrs. Sharma

purchased a powerful weed killer called ‘Weedkill’. Since it was a poisonous substance there

were express warnings on the canister which stated that ‘Weedkill’ was poisonous and also

clearly stated “Wash hands thoroughly after use”. Mrs. Sharma sprayed ‘Weedkill’ liberally on

her flower beds. However, later that day, rain washed some of the weed killer under the fence

onto Mr. Oberoi’s garden and some plants were infected. There were no visible signs of the

weedkiller on Mr. Oberoi’s plants and Shelby roamed around in that area. The following day

Mr. Oberoi’s six year-old daughter, Reyana, noticed that Shelby was lying unconscious in the

back room and was later admitted into the hospital due to his deteriorating condition. The

medical evidence conclusively traced the cause of the illness to the weed killer.

An action was brought on by Mr. Oberoi against Mrs. Sharma based on the rule laid down in

Rylands v. Fletcher. A statement of claim was also issued against ‘Weedkill’ the manufacturers

“NYAYAPRASTHA”, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam – 531 035

 Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University
Visakhapatnam
MOOT & ADVOCACY SOCIETY
10th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETETION, 2022

of the weed killer. The action against Weedkill plc. was, however, struck down and there has

been no further appeal on this point.

At the first instance the Lower Court held that the claim failed on the grounds that the use of

the weed killer was a natural use of the land and that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher could not

be used to obtain damages.

A further appeal in the High Court was also dismissed, however, Mr. Oberoi was granted leave

to appeal in the Supreme Court on the following grounds:

- The use of the weedkiller was a non-natural use of Mrs. Sharma’s land.

- The rule in Rylands v Fletcher could be used to obtain damages for personal

injury.

“NYAYAPRASTHA”, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam – 531 035