STRICT LIABILITY

Meaning – is sometimes called absolute liability

– ie liability that does not depend on actual negligence or

intent to harm.

– Absolute legal responsibility for an injury that can be

imposed on the wrongdoer without proof of carelessness or
fault.

– legal responsibility for damage, or injury, even if the person

found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent.

Rylands v Fletcher Facts:

[1868] UKHL 1; L.R. 3
 John Rylands (D) constructed a reservoir on his rented land
H.L. 330
to supply water to his steam-powered textile mill.
 Thomas Fletcher (C) operated mines on nearby land and
had tunnelled up to old disused mines which were under the
land where Rylands' reservoir was located.
 D’s contractors did not properly block the shaft beneath,
and when filling the reservoir, the water escaped down the
shaft and flooded C’s mines.

Held:

• Court held D was liable even though he was not negligent.

• The English Court of Exchequer:

• “…We think that the true law is that the person who, for his
own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps
there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep
it in at his peril.”
 • “If he does not do so, (he) is prima facie answerable for all
the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.”

• Other examples where P can sue D for compensation:

– P whose grass or corn is eaten by D’s escaping

cattle;

– P whose mine is flooded by the water from his

neighbour’s reservoir;

– P whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes

and vapours of his neighbour’s alkali works

The Rationale – (The victim in those incidents)… is damnified* without any

fault of his own;

– and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour,

who has brought something on his own property which was
not naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is
confined to his own property, but which he knows to be
mischievous if it gets on his neighbour’s,

– should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if

he does not succeed in confining it to his own property.

*injured

Elements of the rule 1. The non-natural use of land by D

which is necessary to 2. Escape of the thing that causes damage of P’s land
 prove: 3. The foreseeability of damage by D

What amounts to the

non-natural use of
land?

Pacific Tin “the said bund was put to uses… unsuitable and hazardous to their
Consolidated Corp v neighbor… (ie) when it was made to hold water in great quantities
Hoon instead of slimes”

Pacific Tin Consolidated Corp v Hoon

Rickards v Lothian “Non-natural use must be some special use bringing with it
increased dangers to others, and must not merely be the ordinary
use of the land or such use as is proper for the general benefit of
the community”

Rickards v Lothian

Ang Hock Hai v Tan “Here the D have brought… for the purposes of their business,
Sum Lee dangerous materials (petrol & rubber) which would not naturally
be upon the premises, and they are under an obligation.. So as not
to cause mischief.”

Ang Hock Hai v Tan Sum Lee

Pacific Tin Facts:

Consolidated Corp v
– App maintained on their lands large ponds for tin dredge-
Hoon Wee Thim [1967]
mining operations. They separated each ponds with bunds
2 MLJ 35
(embankment street).
 – The ponds were above ground level. Water flow from one
pond to another by means of spillways.

– The land was located in an inclined valley. A large breach

in the bund between two large ponds, which together held
nearly 500mil gallons of water, caused a violent outflow to
the lower lands. This caused extensive damage to life and
property to the adjacent lands.

Held:

– Federal Court applied the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and

held Appellant liable. It was found unusual for tin mines in
Malaya to have pools above ground level for retaining
water. The normal practice is to have mines holes below
ground level to retain slimes or tin tailings.

– “Natural user of their property does not imply that

miners had carte blanche* to carry on their mining
operations in any manner they think fit, however
hazardous to their neighbours… Consequently I
hold that the use to which the sand bund was put in
this case was a non-natural user of land.” (Ong
Hock Thye)

– “The bund was put to a non-natural use when it was

made to hold water in great quantities instead of
slimes” (Barakbah LP)

* complete freedom to act as one wishes.

Dato’ Dr Harnam • D who ran a hemodialysis centre, was liable under the rule
 Singh v Renal Link for the escape of gases into P’s premises from the use of
(KL) Sdn Bhd [1996] 1 formalin and renalin in the operation of the centre.
AMR 1157
• It produced noxious gas that escaped into P’s clinic one
floor below that of the D. P suffered discomfort, sickness
and injury

Ang Hock Hai v Tan • D carried on the business of tyre repairers and tyre dealers.
Sum Lee & Anor For that purpose he kept petrol on the premises, to be mixed
(1957) 1 M.L.J. 135 with rubber and gum. P lived on the upper floor of the D’s
premises.

• Fire broke out at the premise for unknown cause. It caused

three explosions followed by a burst of flame that quickly
destroyed the premises. P’s wife and son died.

Escape of the thing:

In Read v J. Lyons & Facts:

Co. Ltd. [1947]
• App (worked in the R’s ammunition factory) suffered injury
when a shell that was being manufactured exploded.

• Claim under the rule of Rylands v Fletcher was not

successful because there had been no escape of the thing
that inflicted the injury.

• To succeed, there must be an escape from the place where

the D has occupation or control, to a place outside his
occupation/control.

Please read & compare with :

Won Tan Kan v Asian Rare Earth Sdn Bhd [1992]3 CLJ 786
 Factory processing radioactive; concerns over the effects of the
dumping of the waste, HC granted interlocutory innjuction; SC
held that the factory obtained licence and complied with statutory
requirements.

The foreseeability of
damage

Cambridge Water Co v Facts:

Eastern Counties
 C extracts water to supply to the public. It then
Leather plc (1994) 1
discovered that the water was contaminated with a
All ER 53
solvent (a liquid substance). It emerged that the solvent
came from the Eastern Counties Leather plc tannery*,
about 1.3 miles from the borehole.
 C claimed on negligence, nuisance and under rule in
Rylands v Fletcher.

Held:

 As the D could not have foreseen the damage suffered

by C, the claims were not successful.

* a place where animal skins are tanned and made into

leather; tan means to convert (animal skin) into leather by
soaking in a liquid containing tannic acid, or by the use of
other chemicals.

Available Defences… 1. Consent of the plaintiff

2. Default of the plaintiff

3. Act of God

4. Act of a stranger
 5. Statutory authority

6. Common benefit

Benefit for/ Consent of • Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre [1943] KB 73

Plaintiff

Act of Stranger (where • Perry v Kendricks Transport Limited [1956] 1 ALL ER

D has no control) 154

Act of God • Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 Ex D 1

Statutory Authority • If the escape is a direct result of carrying out the duty
• Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894)

Benefit for/ Consent

of Plaintiff

Peters v Prince of Facts:

Wales Theatre [1943]
– The claimant leased a shop adjacent to a theatre from the
KB 73
defendant, the owner of the theatre.

– The claimant’s shop sustained flood damage when pipes

from the theatre’s sprinkler system burst due to icy weather
conditions.

– The claimant brought an action based on liability under

Rylands v Fletcher.

Held:

– The defendant was not liable. The sprinkler system was

equally for the benefit of the claimant and the claimant was
deemed to have consented to the use of the sprinkler system
 since it had been installed prior to him obtaining the lease.

Act of Stranger
(where D has no
control)

Perry v Kendricks Facts:

Transport Limited
– The defendant kept an old coach that needed repair on their
[1956] 1 ALL ER 154
land adjoining a piece of wasteland.

– The claimant, a young boy of 10, approached two other

boys on the wasteland close to the coach. As he got close,
the boys lit a match and threw it into the petrol tank of the
coach causing an explosion which left the claimant with
severe burns.

– The claimant brought an action under the principle set out

in Rylands v Fletcher.

Held:

– The defendant was not liable as the escape was caused by

the deliberate action of a third party.

Act of God

Nichols v Marsland Facts:

(1876)
– The defendant diverted a natural stream on his land to
2 Ex D 1
create ornamental lakes.

– Exceptionally heavy rain caused the artificial lakes and

waterways to be flooded and damage adjoining land.
 Held:

– The defendant was not liable under Rylands V Fletcher as

the cause of the flood was an act of God.

Statutory Authority

Green v Chelsea – A water main* burst causing damage to the claimant’s land.
Waterworks Co (1894)
– Chelsea Waterworks co were under a statutory obligation to
70 LT 547
maintain high pressure in the water main.

– This would mean that any escape would inevitably cause

damage.

– They were not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as they had

the defence of statutory authority.

– * the main underground pipe in a system of pipes supplying

water to an area.

The Modern Position of – The Rule is between Negligence and Private Nuisance!
the Rule
– The applicability of defences: Act of God

– The requirements of ‘Foreseeability’

Dunne v North Western  English Appeal Court asserted that the D’s liability in
Gas Board [1964] 2 Rylands v Fletcher itself could simply have been placed
QB 86 on the D’s failure to take reasonable care.
 This means that the court had considered reduced
usefulness of the Rule!
 – Despite the judicial tendency to restrict the applicability of
the strict liability principle, it remains relevant, augmenting
& supplementing the law of nuisance and negligence by
providing a mechanism whereby risk is allocated justly and
efficiently.

– Despite negative views on the principle being expressed in

the House of Lords, it has been applied by the English
Courts.

Dunne v North Western Facts:

Gas
– Gas escaped from a gas main caused by a burst water main.
Board [1964] 2 QB 86
The gas travelled along a sewer* and was ignited, causing a
series of explosions resulting in injuries to five claimants.

– One was blown off her bicycle, two young children were
injured playing in the street and a husband and wife
suffered injuries in their home. They each brought an action
based on liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

Held:

 The defendant was not liable. The Gas Board had not
accumulated gas for their own purposes.
 * an underground conduit for carrying off drainage
water and waste matter.