In which case following rule was laid: "We think that the true of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of Its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient".

A. Donoghue v. Stevenson

B. Rylonds v. Fletcher

C. M. C. Mehta v. Union of India

D. Nichols v. Marsland

Answer: Option B