Tutorial Question 4

Question 1
Discuss and elaborate the defenses that is available under the rules of Ryland v
Fletcher. Please support your defences with authority under the law.

Question 2
Adam and Ah Meng are neighbours. They live in Taman Nirwana. Every year during
Christmas, there will an event in conjunction to the celebration. This time there will
be a big fun fair organized at their place. Adam and Ah Meng are planning to go to
that fun fair. There will be a lot of games and prize- winning contest. One of their
favorite items is riding the Chair o plane.
One evening Adam and Ah Meng went to the fun fair and to ride the chair o plane.
They bought the token and were waiting for their ride. When Adam was about to sit
on the chair, he found that the seat is a bit wobbly. He told one of the organizers in
charge about it. The organizer took note of his complaint but told Adam that there is
nothing to worry about. The weather that evening was not excellent. There was
heavy wind blowing and dark cloud. While the chair was swinging, heavy rain started
pouring with thunder and lighting. The wobbly chair started to wobble very bad and
as a result, Adam was thrown out of the swing. He suffered severe injury and was in
the ICU for a week. Adam’s father was very upset and argued that the organizer
should be strictly liable for the injury caused to his son and demand a large sum of
compensation. The organizer disagrees with Adam’s father’s demand and contended
that they are not liable as what befall Adam was an act of God. Moreover, Adam has
consented to ride the chair o plane despite knowing the chair is wobbly. Adam’s
father was devastated and came to see you seeking for advice. Advice Adam’s
father.

Whether fun fair organizer have the strict liability for the escape of chair.

Fun fair equipment is something likely to do mischief if it escapes. Adam had already
warn about the possible escape of the chair, yet the organizer take no action about
it. The organizer should denoted that the dangerous escape of the chair when it
travelling at high speed, however they choose to be silent.
In instance the case of And Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee [1957], where the defendant
store petrol in his shop lots and cause fire to burn the occupier upstairs. It was later
held, defendant would be liable for strict liability as petrol was a dangerous
substances to be store. In Hillier v Air Ministry [1962], the high voltage cables that
were not properly concealed underground causing claimant cows electrocuted, exist
a strict liability on the part of plaintiff. As electric cable could bring severe damage if
not properly install and escape.
On the second elements, the thing must escape.
In Wee Lok Mining Co Ltd v Jiap Lee Brickmakers Ltd [1972], the court stated
that the escape must be proven before the principle of strict liability could applicable.
Moreover in Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947], Viscount Simon LC ruled that, the
word “escape” in this principle shall mean escape from a place, which defendant has
control of to a place which is outside his control.
Applying Wee Lok Mining case to the instance case, the seat sat by Adam was
indeed escape

Third element on the foreseeability of damage.

Whether the organizer could claim defenses for his strict liability
First, consent of plaintiff, when there is consent for the present of hazardous material
then the claimant may not able to institute proceeding under this rule.
In Sheikh Amin bin Salle v Chop Hup Seng [1974], the defendant use plaintiff
rented premise for bakery and it was assented by plaintiff the present oven is there.
Later the premise was burned by the oven. It was held, plaintiff have acquiescence
for the activity hence his action failed. Moreover in AG v Cory Brother Ltd [1921],
the court ruled that if the plaintiff have either expressly or impliedly consent to the
existence of the dangerous thing, the defendant will not be liable for an escape
resulting damage.