LIA1003 – TORT 1

Session 2018/2019

STRICT LIABILITY:
The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Lecturer:
Dr. Nadhratul Wardah Salman
Faculty of Law, University of Malaya

1
 STRICT LIABILITY

A. Understanding Strict Liability

B. The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
C. Elements to establish Strict Liability
D. Foreseeability of damage
E. Defences

2
 Understanding
STRICT LIABILITY
• Originated from the tort of private nuisance.
However it has a restricted application
compared to nuisance.
• Described as ‘liability which is imposed on the
defendant without any proof of fault on his
part.’ Meaning Pf need not prove fault.
• There must be an accumulation and the
substance accumulated must be likely to cause
injury if it escapes (neither of these conditions is
required in nuisance!).
3
 Understanding
STRICT LIABILITY contd

• Df may be liable if the tort falls under the

category of strict liability torts.
• Strict liability can also arise if there is a breach
of statutory duty, depending on the wordings of
the relevant provisions.

4
 The Rule in
Rylands v Fletcher
• It is the landmark case: Read it!
• Df were neither negligent nor vicariously liable
for the negligence of their independent
contractors.
• But HOL held them liable to the Pf
• Blackburn, J (Court of Exchequer) - The rule in Rylands v Fletcher:
“We think that the true 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 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”

5
 The Rule in
Rylands v Fletcher contd
• Df may avoid liability if he can prove that the
escape:
a. Was due to plaintiff own’s fault
b. It was caused by an act of God

(Applicable only if Df used his land for non-

natural use. However, this requirement gives
difficulty in determining the applicability of the
rule).
6
 The 4 ELEMENTS
Establishing Liability

There are 4 elements to the tort:

1. Intentional Storage/Accumulation
2. Dangerous things (likely to cause
damage if it escapes)
3. Which amount to a non-natural use of
land
4. The thing actually escapes, causing
damage.
7
 The 4 ELEMENTS
establishing SL

1. Intentional storage / Accumulation

• Giles v Walker [1890]

• Whalley v Lancashire and Yorkshiere Railway C0
[1883]
• Leakey v National Trust [1980]
• Wu Siew Ying v Gunung Tunggal Quarry [2008]
• Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish
Guano Co [1921]
8
 The 4 ELEMENTS
establishing SL
2. Dangerous things (likely to cause damage if it
escapes).
Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947]:
There is no liability unless there is an ‘escape’ of
the dangerous substance from the land under the
control of the Df to a place outside his control

 Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee & Anor [1957]

9
 The 4 ELEMENTS
establishing SL
3. Non-natural use of Land
Lord Moulton in Rickards v Lothian [1913]:
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 a is
proper for the general benefit of the community.

The perception may change in accordance with

social & economic factors and the needs of the
society.
10
 The 4 ELEMENTS
establishing SL
3. Non-natural use of Land: Cases

 Mason v Levy Autoparts of england Ltd [1967]

 British Celanese Ltd v A H Hunt [1969]
 Pontardawe RDC v Moore-Gwyn [1929]
 Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board [1978]
 Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co [1918]
 Yat Yuen Hong Co v Sheridanlea & Anor [1963]
 Abdul Rahman Che Ngah & Ors v Puteh bin Samat [1978]
 Hoon Wee Thim v Pacific Tin Consolidated Corporation [1966]
 Dr Abdul Hamid Abdul Rashid v Jurusan Malaysia
Consultants [1997]

11
 The 4 ELEMENTS
establishing SL

4. Escape that causes damage

 Hale v Jennings Bros [1938]

 Weng Lok Mining v Hiap Lee Brickmakers [1972]
 Woon Tan Kan v Asian Rare Earth Sdn Bhd [1992]
 Dato’ Dr Harnam Singh v Renal Link [1996]

12
 DAMAGE
Df is prima facie liable for damage suffered by the
Pf.
The concept of reasonable and foreseeable damage
(the Wagon Mount’s case) is followed in the
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather
plc [1994]: For liability to arise, the type of damage
must be reasonably foreseeable.

HOL’s decision in Cambridge Water:

“The land was used in non-natural but because
the damage was NOT foreseeable, Df could NOT be
held liable”. 13
 FORESEEABILITY
of Damage

Based on the case of Cambridge Water Co:

Now, Pf has to prove that:

① There is a dangerous thing

② Which has been actively accumulated
③ And could reasonably be foreseen to escape*
④ The thing actually escapes, causing damage
⑤ The type of damage suffered by P is foreseeable
⑥ The land is used for non-natural purpose

* Read Norchaya (2010) p.381

14
 FORESEEABILITY
of Damage

This principle makes even more difficult for a

plaintiff to succeed in an action for strict liability.

Further reading:

Naeem, M “Strict Liability Under Attack: The Need to

Protect It – A Critism of Cambridge Water v Eastern
Counties Leather Plc” [1994] 4 CLJ ci

15
 DEFENCES
1. Consent of the plaintiff
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (Birmingham) Ltd [1943]
Thomas v Lewis [1937]

2. Common benefit
Carstairs v Taylor [1871]
Dunne v North Western Gas Board [1964]

3. Act of a third party

Box v Jubb [1979]
Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd [1956]
North western Utilities v London Guarantee and Accident Co
Ltd [1936]
16
 DEFENCES
4. Act of God
Nichols v Marsland [1876]
Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway [1917]
Hoon Wee Thim v Pacific Tin Consolidated Corporation [1966]

5. Contributory negligence (The plaintiff’s default)

Eastern and SA Telegraph v Cape Town Tramways Corp [1902]
Hoare & Co v McAlpine [1923]

6. Statutory authority
Green v Chealsea Waterworks [1894]
Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power [1914]

17
 TUTORIAL QUESTION

Chong purchased an old shop house in Jalan Merah, Sri Pinang and turned
the shop house into a swallow rearing house. This is performed by sealing
the whole building and making small holes in the wall. This is a very
innovative technique to induce swallows to nest and consequently, facilitate
the collection of the nest. Chong had successfully collected the bird’s nest to
be sold to bird’s nest soup vendors in Sri Pinang town. In fact, Sri Pinang is
well known for bird’s nest soup and receives numerous visits by outsiders who
desire the health goodness from consuming the soup. The presence of these tourists
significantly assists the economy of the Sri Pinang residents. Chong’s bird’s nest
house has also contributed to Sri Pinang becoming a tourist attraction given that the
price of bird’s nest soup has become cheaper.

18
 TUTORIAL QUESTION continued

Six months after Chong started his activity, a number of Sri Pinang residents
became infected with Meningitis B. According to one Dr. Alan, an expert in
vector carrying diseases, Meningitis B is a disease caused by a type of virus
that is only carried by birds from Africa. His research found that there were
swallows nesting in Chong’s nesting house which were from Congo Basin in
Africa. Even though such occurrence is irregular, Dr. Alan later discovered
that these swallows were actually on their way to Myanmar when a
monsoon storm diverted them here.

Among those who fall victim to this Meningitis B outbreak were Zul, Ram
and Marcus. The government ordered all the residents of Sri Pinang to be
evacuated so that the disease could be controlled. Safya had to stop her
bird’s nest soup business for two weeks due to the evacuation. She could
have earned RM14,000 in profits during that period.

Advise Zul, Ram, Marcus and Safya who wish to take an action in the tort of
strict liability against Chong. 19
JUST A REMINDER …

20
 THANK YOU

The lecturer can be contacted at:

[Link]

21