1) What is it?
A term used to describe liability imposed on a Defendant without any proof of fault on his part. It can also arise in a cause of action for breach of statutory duty but the ‘strictness’ of liability depends on the wording of the relevant statutory provisions.
2) Rule In Rylands v Fletcher
The defendant may only avoid liability if he proves that there is contributory negligence or if it is an act of God. Also, the rule only applies if the Defendant used his land for non-natural use.
3) Five elements required to establish liability:
a) The existence of a dangerous thing/thing likely to cause damage if it escapes
Whether the thing is considered dangerous in that it may cause damage if it escapes is determined through the ordinary experience of mankind. The object or ‘thing’ need not be dangerous per se because there are objects which are safe if properly kept, but are dangerous if they escape. It is thus a question of fact.
However, it should be noted that this element is no longer accurate and practical in England as seen in the Cambridge Water case where it was held that the relevant damage must be foreseeable and it is irrelevant whether the thing is dangerous or not.
b) Intentional storage/accumulation
This applies to an object or thing which the Defendant has purposely kept and collected. It is, however, not applicable to anything that is naturally on the land as held in Giles v Walker. Also, if an occupier of the land intentionally causes something that is naturally found on his land to escape, he may still be held liable for any consequent damage that is caused to the Plaintiff as held in Whalley v Lancashire & Yorkshire Rly Co.
It should be noted that the storing of the things must be for the Defendant’s own purposes. As held in Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guano, this element does not apply if the thing is brought onto the Defendant’s land by or for the use of another person (e.g. licensee).
c) Escape
“Escape” means when the object has escaped from a place over which the Defendant has control and authority to a place in which the Defendant has no control and authority. An example is when something escapes from the Defendant’s property to his neighbour’s property. In the case of Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd, it was held that escape includes a situation where the use of a dangerous thing causes or creates an event from which damage is sustained.
d) Non-natural use
Natural use means ordinary use although “artificial” whereas non-natural use means extraordinary use. Non-natural use of land has been equated with unreasonable risk in the tort of negligence.
There is no conclusive test to determine whether there was natural or non-natural use. As such, it is determined by balancing the probability of damage occurring plus the seriousness of the probable damage compared to the social benefit derived from it.
e) Foreseeability of damage
A defendant will not be liable for all consequential damage that results from an escape. The defendant will only be liable if the type of damage is foreseeable.
4) Are there any defences available for the Defendant?
a) Consent of the plaintiff
Be it express or implied consent
b) Common benefit
If the dangerous thing is allowed to exist for the common benefit of both the Plaintiff and Defendant.
c) Act of a third party
This is applicable if that person acts outside of the Defendant’s control.
d) Act of God
When the escape occurs through natural causes which are unforeseeable and without human intervention.
e) The plaintiff’s default
If the damage is caused by the Plaintiff’s own actions or wrongdoing, he will not be compensated.
f) Statutory authority
Liability will not be imposed on a Defendant who acts under the authority of a statute which excludes liability for such acts.
5) What kinds of remedies are available to the Plaintiff?
The plaintiff may claim pure economic loss or claim for personal injuries.
