• The issue is whether X can sue Y
under the law of strict liability as in the Rules in Rylands v Fletcher for the damage
on his farm and for the injury
suffered by him due to oils spills
and leakage.
• Strict liability is a term used to describe
liability which is imposed on the defendant without proof of fault on his part.
•So, although the defendant might have
taken all reasonable precautions to avoid or minimize risks arising from his activity, he
may still be found liable if the tort which has arisen falls under the category of tort of
strict liability.
Rylands v Fletcher
•Facts: The Def (Rylands) employed independent contractors to
construct a reservoir to supply water to the mill on its land; they did so negligently, unaware of mine shafts underneath; water escaped and flooded the Pl’s coal mine; the Pl sued its neighbour for the significant
financial damage caused.
Exchequer Decision: Blackburn J. held that where a Def brings something on his land for his benefit and knows it is likely to cause mischief if it escapes, he keeps it as his peril and is answerable for its
escape. Limited defences are, however, available to the Def.
HL Decision: Cairns L.J. modified the principle slightly, holding that the use of the thing must constitute a “non-natural” use of property to
render the Def liable.
In order to bring an action under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in the tort of strict liability,
there are several elements must be satisfied:
1. Accumulation
2. For his own purpose
3. Dangerous object / Likely to do mischief
4. Escape
5. Non-natural use of land 6. Forseeability
INTENTIONAL ACCUMULATION AND FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE
• The rule applies to an object or thing which the defendant
purposely keeps and collects.
Even if he himself has not
accumulated the thing, he may still be liable if he has authorized the accumulation. The liability
rests in those who have control over the thing
Miles tf Forest Rock Granite
• The defendant was blasting rocks using explosives which they had brought onto their land. Some of the rocks flew onto the highway and injured the claimant.
The claimant
brought an action based on the principal established in Ryland v Fletcher.
Held:
• The defendant was liable despite the fact that the rocks were not brought on to the land nor purposively collected and kept there. The explosives were accumulated and
caused the rocks to escape.
Rainham Chemical Works tf Belvedere Fish Guano
• X and Y set up a company Z Ltd. The function of Z Ltd was to
perform a contract entered into both X and Y, with another party, to manufacture
explosives. Z Ltd was to manufacture the explosives on X and Y’s land. So Z Ltd was a
licensee. An explosion occurred, damaging neighboring property. The House of Lords found Z Ltd liable as the licensee which had accumulated the thing. X and Y, as occupiers
and landowners were also liable for the escape of the thing accumulated by their licensee as the accumulation was a discharge of X and Y’s contractual duty to another party.
• Applying to case above, the
tank and the oils are owned by Tuah for his orchids. The
oil has been accumulated by Tuah in the tank with the
intention of heating the oil as to regulate the growing of his
orchids in the glasshouse for
selling
.•However, there was corrosion at the tank and due to that the oil leaks out and contaminates
vegetables growing on the farm belonging to Jebat and the oils
also spills out onto the road. Due to that it had caused damage to
Jebat’s property and it also caused Jebat to skids his car
and suffered injury when he was driving at the road where the oils
had spilled. Since, Tuah had the intention to store the oils and the
tank.
Thus, he satisfied this element.
EXISTENCE OF
DANGEROUS THINGS
• The rule applies to anything that may cause damage if it escapes. It does not need to be dangerous per se.
•The test used is whether the thing is considered dangerous if it may cause damage when it escapes and
it is determine through Ordinary Experience of Mankind :
Whether a lay man would
believe/foresee that the accumulated things would cause damage if it
escaped.
Ang Hock Tai tf Tan Sum Lee &
Plaintiff rented a shop house and lived on Anor
the first floor of the building. The ground floor was sublet to the defendant who was in the business of repairing and disturbing tyres.
Defendant stored petrol for business purpose. One morning defendant’s
premises caught fire and it spread to the first floor and the plaintiff’s wife and child
died in the tragedy. Defendant liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as
the petrol was a dangerous thing.
• Applying the third element, any lay man would foresee that the oil stored would pose harm and
likely to cause mischief if it escapes, as the nature of oil is
poisonous towards biological entity and environment. And it is
a fact that oil slick spills on any surface would cause it to turned
slippery.
• In this case the oil escaped its tank and spilled into Jebat’s farm and contaminated vegetable grown making them spoilt. And spillage on the road caused the road to be slippery which made it dangerous to be driven on, and in fact causes Jebat who was driving on the road at that time to
lose control of his car and involved in and accident.
• Thus, this element is satisfied.
ESCA
• The plaintiff must prove that PE
there has been
an escape.
• Escape means the things had escaped from a place over
which the defendant has
control and authority to a place of which the
defendant has no control and authority.
Viscount Simon
Midwood & Co Ltd v Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of Manchester
•The defendant were held liable when an explosion on their
property caused inflammable
gas to escape into the plaintiff’s house and consequently set fire to the plaintiff’s property.
• Applying to the case above, the leakage of the tank had caused the oils to leaks out and
contaminates the vegetable farm own by Jebat and spills out onto the road where most people used
and not under the authority of Tuah. Since, the oils are under
control of Tuah and because of the leakage it had contaminates to a
place which is not under his
control that is to Jebat’s farm and the road thus, the oils can be said
had escape into Jebat’s property and onto the road.
• Therefore due to escape it had caused damage to Jebat’s
property and because of that also Jebat suffered injury when his car
skided.
Hence, this element is
satisfied.
NON NATURAL-USE OF LAND
•The defendant will only be liable if in bringing or accumulating the thing
onto his land, he makes a non-
natural use of the land.
Rickhards v Lothian
It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must
not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the
general benefit of the community.
•The public benefit of the activity will probably be considered by courts to
constitute a natural use of land but this has to be weighed against the extent of the risk
that arises from that activity.
• No conclusive test may be given as to what constitutes a non-natural use of land. It is often equated with
extraordinary use.
• Factors which the courts have taken into account were the quantity of the thing, the way in which it was stored
and also the location of the defendant’s land.
Hoon Wee Thim tf Pacific Tin Consolidated Corporation
•D built reservoir on his land. Heavy
rainfall caused water-bunds to collapse, water escaped to the adjacent
land. Caused death to the deceased by drowning.
Held:
•Using sand-bunds to separate ponds of water constituted a dangerous and non-natural use of land and any
resulting damage would be caught under the
rule of Rylands.
• Growing and selling orchards in a garden center in a rural areas can be considered as natural use of
land. However, as the conduct or activity carried out to grow the
orchids by heating
an
extremely large average tanks oil in order to heat the glasshouses can be regarded as non- natural uses of land as the heating the oil
is highly risk activity that can
cause damage to his neighbors or surrounding if no reasonable
precaution taken.
Thus, this element can be said to be fulfilled.
DAMAGES MUST BE REASONABLE AND
FORESEEABLE
• Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather
plc
In the claim under strict liability the court held that the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher would only applicable if it could be foreseen that damage of relevant type would occur as a result of an escape and the defendant does
not take any steps to prevent the escape from occurring thus in this case defendant is not liable as the contamination of PCE spillage is not
foreseeable. .
• Thus, applying the last element to Tuah’s case. The damage
resulted from oil spillage from the escape from it its storage is of
reasonable and foreseeable one.
That the oil spill on the Jebat farm would contaminate and destroy
Jebat’s vegetable and spillage on the road would cause an accident to occur. The damages suffered by
Jebat are reasonably foreseeable.
Thus, the last element is fulfilled.
ACT OF A THIRD PARTY
• The test used to determine
whether a person is a third party or otherwise is whether that
person
act outside the defendant’s
control, the defendant may still be held liable if he ought reasonably
to have foreseen the act of the third party. The unforeseeable act
of a third party who is not under defendant control has been
accepted to be a good defense.
Rickards v Lothian
A third party deliberately blocked the waste-pipe of a lavatory basin
in the defendant’s premises and thereafter turned on the tap water.
The overflowed water then
damaged the plaintiff’s property which was situated on the floor
below. Raising this defence the
defendant was held not liable by the court for the damage.
