In Perry v Kendrick's Transport, which defense was asserted in a Rylands v Fletcher case?

In the context of Perry v Kendrick's Transport, the assertion of unforeseeable acts when transporting goods is relevant to the principles established in the Rylands v Fletcher case. This principle typically focuses on strict liability for the escape of hazardous materials from one's property, but it also allows for defenses related to the nature of the activity and the foreseeability of potential harm.

By arguing that unforeseeable acts occurred during the transportation of goods, the defendants in Perry v Kendrick's Transport could demonstrate that they took reasonable measures to prevent harm and that the incident was not a result of their negligence or improper handling. This defense emphasizes that if certain risks were not anticipated and were beyond the control of the party, it may mitigate liability under the Rylands v Fletcher doctrine. Therefore, by establishing that the circumstances surrounding the incident were beyond their reasonable foresight, the defense asserts a position that could absolve them of liability in this nuisance claim.

The other options focus on different aspects that do not align with the specific legal context of Rylands v Fletcher, which centers on the strict liabilities regarding hazardous escapes rather than general negligence, mutual benefits, or natural disasters directly leading to damages.