Torts _strict_liability_
1 like779 views
Strict liability holds that a person who brings anything dangerous onto their land that is likely to cause damage if it escapes is liable for any damage caused, regardless of negligence. This principle was established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1866). The defendant had constructed a reservoir that flooded into abandoned mine shafts leading to the plaintiff's land, damaging it. The court found the defendant liable, establishing that those who use land in a non-natural way, for their own benefit and which increases danger from escape, are strictly liable for any damages from escape. For strict liability to apply, it must be proven that the defendant brought a non-natural use of land, the thing escaped from where the defendant occupied or controlled the
Torts _strict_liability_
- 1. STRICT LIABILITYSTRICT LIABILITY THE RULE IN REYLANDS V FLETCHER (1866)THE RULE IN REYLANDS V FLETCHER (1866) The D constructed a reservoir upon his land in order to supply water to his mill.There was a disused and filled-up shaft of an old coal mine the passages of which communicated with the adjoining mine of P. Due to the neglence of the contractor appointed by D, this fact was not discovered and the danger caused by it was not guarded.When the reservoir was filled up by water ,the water escape to P`s land through the shaft. HL: D was liable. Blackburn J : `The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects 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’ This case had develop the principle of Strict liability as one of torts action. ELEMENTS TO PROVE STRICT LIABILITY NON NATURAL USE OF LAND Defendant brings into his land, something which is for special use which will increase danger to others. Richards v Lothian It is question of fact.Depend on circumstances,social utility. (1) Water Liability in respect of water depends on whether the water is naturally on the land or it is artificially accumulated or interfered with in some way. Seong Fatt Sawmill Sdn.Bhd. v Dunlop M`sia Industries Sdb.Bhd. D had artificially accumulated the rainwater with the excavation which was an alteration to the nature of the land. Held liable. Abd. Hamid Abd Rashid Dr. & Anor v Jurusan M`sia Consultants (sued as a firm) & 4 Ors. (2) Fire If for purpose of cooking or domestic use –natural But if used in industrial process,unlicenced locomotive steam enjine shoot out spark at highway it is non natural use. (4 ) Other activities 1 Planting poisonous tree in the land- Non Natural Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board 2 Let propertis to undesirable tenant for own benefit if they defecated the neigbour –N.Natural . AG v Corke ESCAPE Escape from the place where the D has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control Note: the victim must be outside the land of D Read v Lyons Occupant or Control 1.D must occupy or has control over the land from which the thing escape. 2.Damage to car parked at public street by acid emitted by D`s boiler house held liable. Halsey v Esso Petroleum 3.Gas escaped from leaking pipe under Public St.D who maintain the pipe held liable. Benning v Wong 4.an owner who is not in occupation of the land at the time of the escape may be liable if he authorised the accumulation which escape. Rainham Chemical works v Belvedere Fish Guano Co. Personel Injury l. The rule in Reylands only covers property damage only obiter in Read v Lyons 2. In some cases the rule extended to personal injury. 3. A Chair O`plane which caused personal injury to P due to D`s negligence held liable. Hale v Jennings Bros. Personal injury claimable. Yat Yuen Hong Co.Ltd v Sheridan 3. But it is not settle yet Dunne v North Western Gas Board. FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE The Defendant must reasonably foerese that plaintiff will suffer the damage The rule had extended in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Countries Leather. (3)Electricity,Explosive/ Chemical Electricity/gas for domestic use OK But imflamable kept indoor if escape and cause fire/explode not natural. Ang Hock Hai v Tan Sum Lee (petrol for tyre business-liable) Reid v Lyon(manufacture amunition during war to defeat enemy and exploded OK) British Celanese Ltd v A.Hunt (Manufacture electrical/electronic is for community if escape OK.)