Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Strict liability in Rylands v Fletcher (1883) 3 HL 330 (2. The elements…
Strict liability in Rylands v Fletcher (1883) 3 HL 330
1. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
a. Strict liability is a term which is used to describe liability which is imposed on the defendant without any proof of fault on his part.
b. In the case, the defendant mill owner employed some independent contractors to build a reservoir. Beneath the reservoir were some iron shafts that went through a mining area and which were connected to the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant did not know of the existence of the existence of these shafts and the contractors were negligent in not blocking the shafts. The plaintiff’s mine was flooded when the reservoir was filled with water. The defendants themselves were not negligent and neither were they vicariously liable for the negligence of their independent contractors, but the House of Lords held them liable to the plaintiff.
c.
Blackburn J
– 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 at his perils, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequences of its escape.
2. The elements
a. The defendant brought something onto his land
i. Accumulation
ii. For his own purpose
b. Non-natural use of the land
c. Most likely to cause harm if escape
d. The ‘thing’ did
i. Escape and
ii. Cause damage
3. Elements – The defendant brought something onto his land
a. Accumulation – the defendant must brought something onto his land for his own purposes that does not naturally occur there.
CASES
Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board
Ponting v Noakes
Giles v Walker
4. Elements – Non-natural use of his land
b. Lord Moulton in the case of
Rickards v Lothian
, defines non-natural use as ‘there must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and it must not be merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community’
a. What the courts define as ‘non-natural’ has been subject to change
CASES
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
5. Elements – likely to cause harm if escapes
a. It must be foreseeable that the thing brought onto the land is likely to do mischief if it escapes
b. The escape itself does not have to be foreseeable
CASES
Hale v Jennings
MALAYSIAN CASE: Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee
6. Elements – escape
a. The thing that was brought into the defendant’s land must escape to the other’s land
b. Escape is defined as escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control
CASES
Read v Lyons
Rickards v Lothian
British Celanes v Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd
MALAYSIAN CASE: Yat Yuen Hong Ltd v Sheridan Lea & Anor
7. Elements – foreseeability of damage
a. The escape must cause damage
b. The normal rule of causation applies where the damage must be reasonably foreseeable as decided in the case of
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather
MALAYSIAN CASE: Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan v Tenaga Nasional Berhad