Dangerous activities

Where particularly dangerous activities are undertaken by a neighbour, it is common that he or she is liable for the consequences without proof of fault, because if you create a risk for your own benefit, then you should also shoulder the burdens this creates for others.

The obvious example (a French case of 1915) is where a munitions dump is sited near people. If it explodes and neighbours are injured they should be compensated without proof of fault. Similarly in England, where a person built a reservoir and its water seeped underground and flooded mine workings, the neighbour was able to recover without proof of fault (Rylands v Fletcher 1868). On the role of fault and no fault liability, see the Doctrine Legal Case Study.

They could at least pretend that it's not under control.