STRICT LIABILITY

THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

Strict Liability is liability independent of any fault ie

the Defendant is liable for the act or omission done eventhough he acted innocently and is no fault. Originated from the tort of nuisance but has developed to day so it become distinct from the tort of nuisance.

FACTS OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER

P was mining coal with the permission of the landowner. D owned a mill near that land and they obtained the

permission of the same landowner to build a reservoir to supply water to their mill. They had no knowledge of the coal mine underground and they employed competent contractors to construct the reservoir. The contractor had encountered some old shafts and they were found negligent in failing to provide adequate support to bear the water pressure when the reservoir would have been filled. But there was no personal negligence on the part of the D and neither not vicariously liable for the negligence of the independent contractors.

FACTS
In fact the existence of the underground works was

not known to them or their agents until the reservoir burst downwards into the shafts and flooded the Ps mine.

HELD
The judge said that : We think that the rule of law is that

the person who, for his own purpose, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in his peril (danger), and if he does not do so, he 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 the consequence of the Act of God It was held that the D was responsible however careful he may have been and whatever precautions he may have taken.

ELEMENTS TO ESTABLISH S.L

Escape 2. Non-natural use of land
1.

ESCAPE

There must be an escape of the

substance from the land which it is kept i.e escape from the place where the D has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control

Read v Lyons
- An inspecktor of munitions was injured when a shell

that was manufactured at the Ds factory where she was employed, exploded and caused her substantial injuries. D were held not liable as there was no escape.

Midwood v Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of Manchester

- D were held liable when an explosion on their property caused inflammable gas to escape into the Ps house and consequently set fire to the Ps property.

NON NATURAL USE OF LAND

Property which was not naturally there

and increased dangers to others An ordinary or natural use of land would be include erecting a house, installing water, electric wiring and gas pipes or constructing a fish pond.

Rickards v Lothian
Lord Moulton :

It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community. Eg, 17th century, building skysrapers was probably a dangerous activity and constituted a non-natural use of land, but in 20th century, it is usual and arguably a natural use of land.

Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board

D planted a yew tree on his land. The branches and

leaves of the trees extended into the Ps land. The leaves of the tree are in fact poisonous to cows. Ps horse ate the leaves and died. Held: D liable as planting a poisonous tree is not natural use of land. An escape of the tree had occurred as the branches and leaves had encroached onto the Ps land.

DEFENCES
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Consent of the Plaintiff Common Benefit Act of Third Party Act of God Statutory Authority Default of the Plaintiff

CONSENT
Where the P has expressly or impliedly consented to

the accumulation of the thing the escape of which is complained of and there was no negligence on the pat of D, D is not liable.

Common Benefit
Where the sources of the danger is maintained for the

common benefit of the P and D, the D is not liable for its escape. Eg fogging aedes

Act of Third Party

Where the accumulate the thing on his land but the

escape is caused through the unforeseen act of 3rd party,the D is not liable. Rickards v Lothian : someone deliberately placed a stopper in the defendants basin and filled it with water. The water overflowed and damaged the Ps property which was situated on the floor below. D not liable.

Act of God
If an escape is caused through natural causes and

without human intervention in circumstances which no human foresight can foresee the possibility of occuring, there is then said to exist the defence of Act of God. Eg heavy rainpour.

Statutory Authority
Liability will not be imposed on a defendant who acts

under the authority of a statute which excludes for such acts. Public bodies storing water, gas, electricity and lights are exempted from liability so long as they have taken reasonable care.

Default of the Plaintiff

If the damage is caused solely by the act or default of

the P himself, he has no remedy under Rylands v Fletcher. The P himself expose to danger.

THE END