Which of the following is NOT a recognized defense under Rylands v Fletcher?

Under the principles established in Rylands v. Fletcher, the doctrine focuses on the liability arising from the use of one’s property in a way that may cause harm to others. The key defenses recognized in this context typically include acts of God, consent from the claimant, and acts of the claimant, but not contributory negligence.

Contributory negligence refers to a situation where the claimant may have contributed to their own harm through their actions. This defense is typically associated with negligence claims rather than strict liability claims like those under Rylands v. Fletcher. In the context of this doctrine, the focus is on whether the defendant's use of their property was inherently dangerous or unreasonable, rather than assessing the claimant's contribution to their injury. Therefore, contributory negligence does not operate as a recognized defense in Rylands v. Fletcher.

On the other hand, acts of God pertain to natural events that could not be foreseen or prevented, and consent from the claimant involves situations where the claimant agrees to the risk of harm. Similarly, if the harm is solely the result of the claimant's actions, that may be used as a defense. These aspects highlight the doctrine's emphasis on strict liability, which does not accommodate contributory negligence as a viable defense.