ULT2622: Law of Torts II

Ms. Julia Farhana binti Rosemadi

Rylands v Fletcher Part I

1. Explain the case of Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
[1994] 1 All ER 53 and analyse to what extent the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is
a tort of strict liability.

Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]

- The defendant who was a leather manufacturer used a chemical, PCE, in the process of
manufacturing. The chemical had been spilled little by little on the concrete floor of their
factory. PCE was not soluble in water and it had seeped through the factory floor until fifty
metres below ground. It had the spread at the rate of eight metres per day until it reached
the area the plaintiff used to pump water for the daily supply of the residents in that area.
The distance between the defendant’s factory and the plaintiff’s borehole was 1.3 miles
and it had taken nine months for the PCE spillage to reach borehole. The plaintiff thenhad
to spend 1 million pounds to find and operate another borehole.

- At High Court, the court dismissed the claim stating it is unforseeable that the spillage
would accumulate underground or that it would spread and cause damage to the plaintiff.
On the claim for strict liability, the court held that the defendant’s activity was not a non-
natural use of land taking into account the public benefit in the form of employment that
arose from the activity.The court of appeal had reversed the decision but liability was
founded on nuisance rather than the rule in Rylands v Flecher. This went till the House of
Lords, and they agreed to the decision of the High Court. They stated that there must be a
foreseeability of damage which is pre-requisite. Court said when PCE is poured it is not
foreseable that it will go through the soil.
IN CLASS:
Intro:
Strict liability- no fault liability
Eg: Dog example. If you keep, you take care.
Content:
1) Facts of case:
HC: Not liable
In the High Court, the court originally dismissing the case because they could not have
been foreseeing the damage that will cause under the ground. In addition, by considering
the public benefit, this factory had form employment. Hence the defendant is not liable.
COA: Liable
On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal held that the defendants were strictly liable
for the contamination of the water percolating under the plaintiffs’ land and awarded
damages of over £1m against the defendants
HOL: Forseability
D was not liable as the HOL affirmed the HC decision.

2) Facts of Ryland v Flecher.

HC: D not liab;e
COA: Liable, even if precaustions are taken.
HOL: Non natural use, so D liable.
Elements
1. Dangerous things
 Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee & Anor (1957)

- In this case the plaintiff lived in a shophouse which he rented which was allocated on the
first floor of the building. The ground floor where the defendant lived, he ran a business of
repairing and distributing tyres. The defendant stored pertrol for the purpose of his business.
One certain morning, the premis of the defendant was on fire and the fire spread to the first
floor where the wife and child of the plaintiff were killed because of the fire. The court held
the defendant liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as petrol was considered a
dangerous thing.

2. Intentional Storage / Accumulation

 Giles v Walker [1890].

- In Giles v Walker, the defendant left his land unattended after ploughed.Thistles grew on
the land, which later escaped to the plaintiff’s land and seeded. The court held that thistles
were the natural growth of the land owned by the defendant so he cannot be held liable.
However, liability still can be sought under the tort of negligence and nuisance.

3. Escape
 Weng Lok Mining Co Ltd v Hiap Lee Brickmakers Ltd [1972]

- In this case the court expressly stated that the escape must be proven before the principle
in Rylan v Flecher is applicable.
4. Non- natural use of land.

 This requirement is shrouded in much uncertainty. The defendant will only be liable if
in bringging or accumulating the thing onto his land, he makes a non-natural use of the
land.

 Rickards v Lothian [1913]

- The meaning of non-natural use of land was explained in this case. 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 as is proper for the general benefit for the community.

5. Foreseeability- Cambridge case.

Analysis> Opinion
Relate it back to strict liability.
Rylands v Fletcher
-No foreseeability element Even if you’re not able to foresee that damage were to happen,
you will be held liable The element of foreseeability only introduced in Cambridge Waters
Whereby if you’re not able to reasonably foresee the damage, then you will be held not
liable So there is no strict liability anymore.

IT IS STILL STRICT LIABILITY, BUT ITS NOT SO STRONG ANYMORE.

Conclusion:
Have a firm stand! I say no. Not strict liability anymore because of forceeability.