Ms. Lam bought a lot next to a house owned by Mr. Dodson. She asked Mr. Dodson for permission to use his electricity while building a house on her property. He refused. He feared his house was too old to handle the electricity load needed. Later, a carpenter employed by Ms. Lam accidentally broke a window of Mr. Dodson's while moving lumber. Furthermore, the carpenter removed part of Dodson's fence to make room for needed materials, used Dodson' house to support the lumber and drove some nails into Dodson's tree to hold some wires. Dodson complained to Ms. Lam. Irritated by his stand on the electricity and his complaints, Lam began a civil action against him for the tort of defamation, although she had absolutely no grounds for alleging defamation. Which of the following is not supported by the facts given above? (Points : 5) Dodson could sue Lam for trespass even if there was no damage. Dodson has an action against Lam on the grounds of strict liability (the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher). Dodson has an action against the carpenter for negligence. Dodson has an action against Lam on the principle of vicarious liability. Dodson has an action against the carpenter for trespass.
State/Country relating to question: Canada
Thank you for your question.Dodson could sue Lam for trespass even if there was no damage.Good luck.Dimitry Esquire41082.0712032407
JD/MBA, Business Attorney