strict liability rvf
STRICT LIABILITY
Introduction
Originated from private nuisance, but its application is stricter.
Definition: Liability imposed on the defendant (DF) without proof of fault.
The plaintiff (PF) does not need to prove DF’s fault to bring an action.
Even if DF takes precautions, he may still be liable if tort fall under strict
liability as the intention of the defendant is irrelavant.
There must be an accumalation of substance and must be likely to cause
injury or mischief if it escapes.
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher (landmark case)
Case: Rylands v Fletcher
Rylands (Defendant) built a reservoir on his land to store water for
hydro energy.
Underneath the reservoir, there was an old, unused mine shaft that
connected to Fletcher’s (Plaintiff) coal mine.
Rylands did not know about this shaft, and the contractors he hired
failed to properly block it.
When the reservoir was filled with water, the water leaked through the
shaft and flooded Fletcher’s coal mine, causing damage.
Even though Rylands was not personally negligent, the court held him
strictly liable because he had brought and stored a dangerous thing
(water) on his land, which later escaped and caused harm.
In the judgement, Blackburn, J propounded that:
strict liability rvf 1
, we think that rule of law is, that 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 at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima
facie answearable for all damage which is the natural
consequences of its escape.
Court held: Person who stores or accumulate
anything that is likely to cause damage if
escapes, would be answerable for all the damages
Exceptions:
Escape due to PF’s fault.
Act of God.
The House of Lords (HOL) reaffirmed this rule and added:
Defendant must have made non-natural use of the land. (using the
land in an extraordinary way)
However, This increased the difficulty of proving strict liability.
This Case established 4 elements of strict liability.
Application of Element in Rylands:
✔ 1️⃣ Accumulation → Rylands built a reservoir to store water, meaning he
intentionally accumulated a potentially harmful substance.
✔ 2️⃣ Dangerous Thing → Water is not dangerous by itself, but if it escapes, it
can cause serious damage (as it did to Fletcher’s coal mine).
✔ 3️⃣ Escape → The water leaked through an old mine shaft and flooded
Fletcher’s coal mine, meaning it left Rylands’ land and caused harm
elsewhere.
✔ 4️⃣ Non-Natural Use of Land → Building a reservoir for private hydro
energy was considered an unusual and risky use of land, making it "non-
natural".
Elements of Strict Liability
strict liability rvf 2
STRICT LIABILITY
Introduction
Originated from private nuisance, but its application is stricter.
Definition: Liability imposed on the defendant (DF) without proof of fault.
The plaintiff (PF) does not need to prove DF’s fault to bring an action.
Even if DF takes precautions, he may still be liable if tort fall under strict
liability as the intention of the defendant is irrelavant.
There must be an accumalation of substance and must be likely to cause
injury or mischief if it escapes.
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher (landmark case)
Case: Rylands v Fletcher
Rylands (Defendant) built a reservoir on his land to store water for
hydro energy.
Underneath the reservoir, there was an old, unused mine shaft that
connected to Fletcher’s (Plaintiff) coal mine.
Rylands did not know about this shaft, and the contractors he hired
failed to properly block it.
When the reservoir was filled with water, the water leaked through the
shaft and flooded Fletcher’s coal mine, causing damage.
Even though Rylands was not personally negligent, the court held him
strictly liable because he had brought and stored a dangerous thing
(water) on his land, which later escaped and caused harm.
In the judgement, Blackburn, J propounded that:
strict liability rvf 1
, we think that rule of law is, that 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 at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima
facie answearable for all damage which is the natural
consequences of its escape.
Court held: Person who stores or accumulate
anything that is likely to cause damage if
escapes, would be answerable for all the damages
Exceptions:
Escape due to PF’s fault.
Act of God.
The House of Lords (HOL) reaffirmed this rule and added:
Defendant must have made non-natural use of the land. (using the
land in an extraordinary way)
However, This increased the difficulty of proving strict liability.
This Case established 4 elements of strict liability.
Application of Element in Rylands:
✔ 1️⃣ Accumulation → Rylands built a reservoir to store water, meaning he
intentionally accumulated a potentially harmful substance.
✔ 2️⃣ Dangerous Thing → Water is not dangerous by itself, but if it escapes, it
can cause serious damage (as it did to Fletcher’s coal mine).
✔ 3️⃣ Escape → The water leaked through an old mine shaft and flooded
Fletcher’s coal mine, meaning it left Rylands’ land and caused harm
elsewhere.
✔ 4️⃣ Non-Natural Use of Land → Building a reservoir for private hydro
energy was considered an unusual and risky use of land, making it "non-
natural".
Elements of Strict Liability
strict liability rvf 2
