Course: Tort Law

Title: Rylands v Fletcher / Strict liability (SL)-essay

Date: 2019- 8-6
2017 . Question no.4
Definition SL is a term used to describe liability which is impose on the Df without any prove or fault on
his part. This is important tat the Df has taken necessary action but there’s no prove of fault on
his part. So this the guiding principle is SL.
The landmark case cited here is the Rylands v Fletcher (RvF) which was 1966 case. In this case
the fact of the case Df employed an independent contractor to built a reservoir and beneath the
reservoir there was some mine shaft and went through the mining areas. Actually the Df has
taken necessary actions for ex. Appointing a contractor but the Df didn’t know the existence of
the shaft and the contract were not blocking the shaft. The result of this, the Pf mines were
filled with water. So in this case, the df were not negligence, however, the HOL held them
liable to the pf where the court stated if anyone collects or keeps anything tat 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.’. In this context,
I would like to stress on the escape. The things belong to Df escape and goes to the Pf and this
cause damage to the Pf.
The 5 elements under SL of RvF. First, is intentional storage or accumulation. This rule only
applis when the Df keep on purpose when collect. In Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere,
there’s an agreement betw. 2 parties to perform a contract. And both is a XY. And they hv
enter into an agreement with another party to manufacture explosive. The license was to
manufacture explosive but the large quantities of dinitrophenol had causes explosive. Cause in
property damages and court held to find out the factory has accumulated the explosive
material and also liable for the escape. Therefore, from the fact, the explosive and escape was
relevance to RvF.
Second element was the dangerous things r likely to cause damage if it escape. In Ang Hock
Tai v Tan Sum Lee, the Pf rented the shophouse and live in the 1st floor of the
building/premise. The df, partners of the building, keep petrol on this building for the purpose
of business of repairing tyres. One day, the business caught fire and spread to the 1st floor
resulting in the death of Pf wife and children. The court held tat the Df liable under the rule of
R v F.
Third element is which amount to non-natural use of land. The requirement is in Wagon v
Mound, df will only be liable if indicating or accumulating in bringing dangerous thing onto
this land and make non-natural use of land. In Richard v Verdan, the court stated tat it must be
sound special use bringing and increase danger ..not ordinary use of the land.
Forth element is the thing escape causing damage. 2 cases were cited. First case is Weng Lok
Mining v Hiap Lee, where the court held the escape must be proved before the principle of RvF
applicable. Another case is Read v Lyon co., the inspector of the factory was injured and shell
being manufacture in the factory where cause injuries. The df was liable and they was no
escape. Escape in Read v Lyon, is different where the escape was not interfere the other, but
the escape was occur from the explosion tat happened within their factory. Therefore, he’s not
liable. Or maybe use another principle like negligence, but notSL.
The last element is foreseeability of damages. For the liability to arise the type of damage must
be reasonably foreseeable. This is cited in Cambrige Water Company v Eastern Counties
Leather Plc, where the df who was the leather manufacture who use the chemical in the process
of manufacturing. Therefore, the chemical spill a little by little in the concrete floor of their
factory until 15 metres below the ground. The court dismissed the claim from nuisance and
negligence since the splillage was accumulate underground.
Therefore, these r the elements.
TEST OF TIME
2 cases given. First, Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather. In this case, the
court suggested tat the R v F was subset of nuisance rather than independent tort. However, in
this case the court has slowly not to R v F but this case eventually led down in