STRICT LIABILITY

Tort that holds a person liable for damages caused by their action/product, regardless of fault on the
part: Ryland v Fletcher

• No fault liability, even without D’s fault

ELEMENTS

• DANGEROUS THING:
1. Exceptionally dangerous or risky thing kept/ brought on his land by the defendant
2. D ought to have reasonably known escape of such thing hold exceptional high risk of
harm if escapes
3. Req. high damage not just damage
4. Foreseeability concept imp (Cambridge Water case
The rule has been applied in the following cases:
• Electricity: National Telephone Co. v. Baker, (1893)
• Water: Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co [1914]
• Fire: Jones v. Festiniog Railway (1868)
• A motor vehicle: Musgrove v. Pandelis [1919]
• Gas: Goodbody v. Poplar BC [1915]
• Poison: West v. Bristol Tramways Co [1908]
• Sewage: Tenant v. Goldwin, (1704)
• Explosives: Read v. Lyons, (1947)
• Noxious fumes: West v. Bristol Tramways Co. (1908)
Rusty wire: Firth v. Bowling Iron Co., (1878)

The rule has been held not to apply in the following cases:

• An aeroplane: Fosbroke-‐Hobbes v. Airwork Ltd (1937)

• An oil can: Wray v. Essex CC (1936)

• A boiler without a safety valve: Ball v. LCC (1949)

• Water piped to a block of flats: Transco plc v. Stockport MBC (2004

ESCAPE:

The dangerous thing must escape from D’s property, for the strict liability principle to apply.

• See Read v Lyons & Co. (1947): There was no escape of the ‘dangerous thing’ outside of the
defendant’s premises.

NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND:

Not every use of land, must be some special use of land bringing increased danger to others, must
not be the ordinary use of land or such a use that is for the benefit of the community (RICKARDS V.
LOTHIAN 1913: case law)

Acc to READ V. LYONS & CO 1947: all the things like time, place and practice of mankind must be
taken in considerations before whether that object is dangerous or non-natural use of land.

T. C. Balkrishna Menon v. T.R. Subramanian (1968)

• Held that the use of explosives in an open field on the occasion of a festival is a “non-natural” user
of land.

State of Punjab v. Modern Cultivators (1965)

• Due to overflow of water from a canal, damage was done to plaintiff’s property. Held that use of
land for construction of a canal system is a normal ordinary use.

Mukesh Textile Mills v. Subramanya Sastry (1987)

• A was owner of a sugar factory. B owned land adjacent to A’s sugar factory. A stored quantity of
molasses and it escaped to B’s land and damaged his crop. B sued A.

• Collecting molasses in large quantities was held to be non-natural use of land and if a person
collected such things on his land and escaped to neighbours land, he was liable.

INJURY? DAMAGE:

Foreseeability was added as an element of SL by Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather
pls 1994

Exceptions to the rule

• In the following circumstances, the rule of strict liability is not applicable.

1. Plaintiff’s consent: case of volenti non fit injuria – where P has consented to the accumulation of
the dangerous thing on D’s land. • Examples include: • Balakh Glass Emporium v. United India
Insurance Company Ltd., (1993) • Carstairs v. Taylor (1871)

2. Plaintiff’s own default: If P suffers damage by his own intrusion into D’s property, he cannot
complain about the damage so caused. • See e.g.: Ponting v Noakes (1849

3. Act of third party: Where escape is caused by the act of the third party over whom D has no
control, he will not be liable. • Rickards v Lothian (1913)

4. Act of God/Vis Major: ESCAPE OCCURS DUE TO NATURAL CAUSES WITHOUT HUMAN
INTERENTION- EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

5. Statutory Authority: act done under sanction of a statute, defense against SL is available, it can be
excluded through a legislative body

Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co 1894: mandatory obligation; Ds were authorised by statute to store
water for the purposes of supply to the city. Owing to some accidental cause the water escaped and
caused injury to P. • The Court held that where the accumulation of water by D was not for their
own purpose, and where they had been authorised by statute to accumulate and keep it, they would
not be responsible for any escape, unless it is result of the negligent act of D.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY

Strict liability without exceptions, ie liability here is absolute

The rule was laid down in case: M C Mehta v. Union of India 1987: Industries engaged in “ hazardious
and inherently dangerous” activities to be “strictly and absolutely liable”
Elements:

1. Hazardous or inherently dangerous industry

2. Poses a potential threat
3. s owes an
4. absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to
anyone
5. ESCAPE NOT NECESSARY
6. NO NON NATURAL USE OF THE LAND REQUIREMENTS