RULE IN

RYLANDS V
FLETCHER
Prepared by Julia Farhana Binti Rosemadi
TOPIC OUTLINE
 Introduction
 Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
 Elements of Rylands v Fletcher
INTRODUCTION
 Ryland v Fletcher - strict liability.
 Strict liability: liability is not dependant on proof of fault.
 Irrelevant:
 Defendant might have taken all reasonable precautions to avoid or minimize
risks arising from his activity.
 Mental state of defendant.
 “no-fault liability”
RULE IN RYLANDS V
FLETCHER
 Blackburn J ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265 at 279-280):
 ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for their own
purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so, is
prime facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence
of its escape.”
ISSUES IN COURT OF APPEAL
 Issue 1: Is an absolute duty imposed on a landowner who lawfully brings something onto his
land which, while harmless while it remains there, will naturally cause damage if it escapes?
 Issue 2: Will a party be liable for damage caused by a thing or activity that is unduly
dangerous and inappropriate in a certain place, in light of the character of the place and its
surroundings?
ELEMENTS
1. The existence of dangerous thing/thing likely to cause damage if it
escapes
2. Intentional storage/accumulation
3. Escape
4. Non-natural use
5. Foreseeability of damage
ELEMENT 1: DANGEROUS THINGS/THING
LIKELY TO CAUSE MISCHIEF IF IT ESCAPES
 Anthing that may cause damage if it escapes
 Whether the thing is considered dangerous in that it may cause damage if it escapes is
determined through the ordinary experience of mankind.
 Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee & Anor [1957] MLJ 135
 Attorney General v Corke [1933]
 This element of the thing being described as a dangerous thing is said to be no longer accurate
and practical by authors in England.
 See: Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53
ELEMENT 2: INTENTIONAL
STORAGE / ACCUMULATION
 Brings on his land and collects & keeps.
 Cases:
 Giles v Walker [1890] 24 QBD 656 (thistles)
 Whalley v Lancashire & Yorkshire Rly Co [1884] 13 QBD 131 (rain water)
 An occupier of land who intentionally causes something that is naturally found on his land to
escape may still be held liable for any consequent damage that is caused to the plaintiff.
 Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guano [1921] 2 AC 465 HL.
 Not apply if the thing is brought onto D’s land by or for the use of another person (e.g.
licensee)
CONT…
 Leaky v National Trust [1980] QB 485
An occupier has a duty of care to protect the neighbours from any damage
occurred naturally in his land.
 Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicetershire) Ltd [1918] 34 TLR 500
 Pontardawe RDC v Moore-Gwyn [1929. ] 1 Ch 656
ELEMENT 3: ESCAPE
 Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947] AC 156; [1946] 2 All ER 471 HL.
 Per Lord Porter, “Escape from the place in which the dangerous object has been maintained by
the defendant to some place not subject to his control.”
 Per Lord Simon “Escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land
to a place which is outside his occupation or control.”
 Weng Lok Mining Co Ltd v Hiap Lee Brickmakers Ltd [1972] 1 MLJ 156: escape must be
proven before applying the rule
 Ponting v Noakes
 Midwood & Co Ltd v Mayor, Alderman and Citizens of Manchester
CONT…
 Damage caused by the spread of fire
 Common law presumption: a man is answerable for the damage that results from a fire which began
on his property: Becquet v Mac Carthy [1831] 2 D & Ad 951
 Malaysia does not apply this presumption.
 Where there is no escape of anything brought into the defendant’s land, the defendant could still be
found liable if the plaintiff is able to prove the following conditions laid down in Lembaga Kemajuan
Tanah Persekutuan v TNB :
i) That the defendant had brought onto their land things likely to catch fire, and kept them there in
such a condition that if they did ignite, the fire would be likely to spread to the plaintiff’s land, and
ii) The defendant had brought the things onto his land in the course of some non-natural use of land,
and
iii) The things had ignited and the fire spread.
CONT…
 See also: Lee Kee v Gui See & Anor [1972] 1 MLJ 33

The defendant was found liable when a third party whom he had hired to burn some rubbish on
his land did so without taking any precautions, which resulted in the fire spreading onto the
plaintiff’s land, destroying the latter’s rubber trees
Held: if a person makes a fire on his land in order to burn something which is inflammable, he
must take reasonable steps to prevent the fire from spreading.
This duty is absolute and non delegable.
ELEMENT 4: NON NATURAL
USE
 Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263 at 280 PC
 Per Lord Moulten
 It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others ad it must not merely
be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.
 Per Lord Porter
 All the circumstances of time and practice of mankind must be taken into consideration so that
what may be regarded as dangerous or non-natural may vary according to circumstances.
CONT…
 Non natural use cases:
 Crowhurst v Amsterdam Burial Board- yew tree on defendants land were a non-natural use of
land as it was poisonous.
 Yat Yuen Hong Co Ltd v Sheridanlea & Anor- piling loose earth on a steep slope so that more
flat land would be available was a non-natural use of land.
 Abdul Rahman bin Che Ngah & Ors v Puteh bin Samat- defendant was a contractor engaged
to clear an irrigation canal thus embarked on clearing bushes and weeds- negligently set on
fire by the defendant and the ignition escaped on to the plaintiff’s land, destroying the rubber
trees on it- defendant was liable- escape of fire = non-natural use of land.
 Hoon Wee Thim v Pacific Tin Consolidated Corporation- since the reservoir was situated to an
area which was thickly populated, the defendants were using their land in a special way
bringing with it increased danger to others.
CONT…
 Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003]
 A high pressure pipe supplying water to 66 flats leaked without any negligence of the
defendant local authority owner resulting in loss of support for the gas pipeline- HOL held no
liability as the presence of water in a pipe is a natural use of land.
 British Gas PLC Ltd Co v Stockpot Metropolitan Borough Council [2001]
 British Celanese v A H Hunt Ltd (1969)
 Strips of metal foil stored in the defendant’s factory blew onto the claimant’s land and caused
a power failure when they touched an electricity sub-station.
 Court held that storage of metal foil was a natural use of land and that the factory benefitted
the public.
REMOTENESS/FORESEEABILI
TY OF DAMAGE
 The concept of ‘reasonable and foreseeable damage’ as laid down in Wagon
Mound [1961] AC 388 at 173-174 is applicable in the tort of strict liability.
 See The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617
 Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53
 If foreseeability needs to be proven, is strict liability still relevant?
THANK YOU