STRICT LIABILITY

Strict liability, also or otherwise known as absolute liability or liability without fault, it is a

liability that is being imposed upon a person once a wrong occurs without actual negligence or

intention because there has been a breach of an absolute duty not to do the thing that is

prohibited.

WAYS IN WHICH STRICT LIABILITY OCCURS OR EXIST

⮚ The Rule of Rylands v. Fletcher

⮚ Liability For Animals

⮚ Liability for defective Products and Consumer protection generally

⮚ Liability for breach of a statutory duty, where a statute imposes a strict duty

⮚ Liability for Libel and so Forth

Strict liability implies that if a wrong is done, the wrong doer is liable once the wrong items fr om

an act which had been prohibited and of course the state of mind of the doer is irrelevant as to

whether he had the mind of doing the prohibited act or not. Hence generally or universally, when

a liability is strict only acteus rea or the physical act that is relevant, that is mens rea or a guilty

mind is not relevant and so, mens rea is not needed to make a wrong doer liable in strict liability

tort.
The mere occurrence of the act, prohibited makes the doer of such act liable, except it is one

where certain appropriate defences may nevertheless be pleaded.

According to Sir John Salmond, liability is strict;

“where a man acts at his peril and is responsible

for accidental harm, independently of the existence

of either wrongful intend, or negligence”.

RULE IN RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is common law principle which had been used in deciding some

earlier cases, and which was brought and pronounced in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher by

Blackburn J, the House of Lords and hence this common law principle became known by the
v
name of the case as the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher

THE FACTS IN RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

A defendants / Appellant owned a mill plant of engaged the services of independent contractors

to construct a water reservoir for the use on his mill and while the contractors were doing the

constructions, they found a disused mine shafts and passages which unknown to them linked the

plaintiff’s mines on the adjoining land and hence they failed to block the shafts and when the

reservoir was filled with water, it escaped and flooded the plaintiff’s mine, inflicting damages

upon the legal action taken by the plaintiff, Blackburn J, the trial judge, while summing up the

existing principles of the common law, held that the defendant was liable. However on appeal,

the House of Lords upheld the judgment of the trial court and affirmed the liability of the
defendants. Lord Cairns in the House of Lord, added that the thing which escaped and caused the

damage must not be something that was natural on the land.

DEFINITION OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

The tort known as the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher as, established in this case of Rylands v.

Flectcher is:

“A person who for his own purposes bring on his land and collects and keeps

there anything 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 consequences of

its escape”

Hence the breakdown of the rule in Rylands v. fletcher is;

⮚ Bringing and keeping on one’s land a non- natural user,

⮚ Duty to keep it therein at one’s peril

⮚ Escape of the thing and

⮚ Liability for the natural consequence of its escape

liability may attach, even though there has been no negligence on the part of the defendants or

agents hired by him, and although the act in question is quite innocent.

THE PURPOSE OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS V. FLECTCHER.

The main purpose of having the rule in Rylands v. flectcher a ex s a tort are

⮚ “Everyman must so use his own land as not to damnify another”

⮚ “One is bound to use anything that is his so as not to hurt another by such use”

⮚ “He whose stuff it is must keep it that it may not trespass”.

Hence a person is free to own any property he may, as long as he is using if in a way that is not

causing harm to another person. While explaining the scope of the law in Ryland’s v. fletcher,

Blackburn expressed:

“The person whose grass or corn is eaten by the escapping cattle of his neighbor,

or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbour’s privy, or whose habitation is
… . My
made unhealthy by the fumes and noise some vapours of his neighbour’s alkali works, is

damnified without any faults of his own; and it seems reasonable and just that the neighbor, who

has brought something on his own property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so

long as it is confined to his own property, but which he known to be mischievous if it gets on his

neighbors should be obliged to make good and damage which ensues if he does not succeed in

confining it to his own property. But for his own act in bringing it there no mischief could have
accrued and it seems just that he should at his peril keeps it there so that no mischief may accrue,

or answer for the natural and anticipated consequences. And upon authority, thus we established

to be the law whether the things so brought be beast, or water or filth or stenches”

Examples of the rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher the rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher was a judge

made rule which was applied when a damage was caused by the escape of water in the case of

John Ryland & Jehu Horrocks v. Thomas Fletcher. But generally now, the rule is applied to

damage, caused by the “escape” of so many things and the following constitute some of the

things up on “escape” which the rule applies to nowadays;

1. Water

2. Electricity

3. Sewage

4. Yew trees

5. Oil spillage

6. Explosives

7. Gas

8. Fire

9. Industrial waste water, chemical animal, filth, garbage

10. A “chair-o-plane operated on a fair ground, and so forth. In rear cases human beings.

Hence any non – natural user that escapes from the land or custody of the keeper and causes

harm to any person should probably come under the rule in Ryland’s v. fletcher and therefore

should attracts liability and appropriate compensation or remedy.

respondent company was conducting oil exploration, it diverted a natural stream and hence this

action denied the plaintiff/ Appellant of water and fish. Oil waste accumulated by the defendant /

Respondent also escaped and caused damage to the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff/ Appellant sued

for damages, and on appeal the Supreme Court Held: that the defendant respondent company

was liable for the escape of the crude oil waste that caused damage to the plaintiff’s land and

killed fish therein.

However, if the court held that the company was not liable for diverting the course of the

natural stream, as there has been no flooding of the plaintiff’s land but only a denial of the

plaintiff of water and fish.

In Tuber vil v. Stamp (1697) 90 ER 846. A farmer set fire to burn the stubble on his land

and owing to the negligent management of the fire, it escaped or spread to the plaintiff’s land,

who was his neighbor and burnt his growing corn. It was held by the court that the defendant

farmer was liable for damage caused by the fire that spread from the land of the defendant.

ELEMENTS OF RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

For a plaintiff to succeed in his or her claim under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher the plaintiff

must prove the following three elements of this tort and they are;

⮚ That the defendant brought or kept a non – natural user on his land

⮚ That there was an escape of the non – natural user and

⮚ That damage was done to the plaintiff as a result

As said above that if must be proved by the plaintiff, that the defendant brought non- natural user

on his land, this means that the defendant either

⮚ Brought and kept the thing on his land: or

⮚ The thing was brought by the third party, and the defendant allowed, or kept it on his land

for his own purpose or for purposes of the persons on his land

Hence there must be a bringing, or a keeping by the defendant of the thing that escaped and

caused damage. Lawrence J, while explaining the law in his regard in the case of Bartlett v.

Tottenham (1932) ch 114 said that the rule applies only to:

“things artificially brought, or kept upon the defendants land”

So, as a general rule, a defendant is not liable for the escape of things which are naturally on the

land, such as damage cause by;

⮚ Rocks which are naturally on the land

⮚ Water that is naturally on the land, or which fell on it as rain

⮚ Vegetation which is naturally on the land by way of uncultivated growth, spreading to the

plaintiff’s land and growing there

In Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board (1878) 4 Ex. D5, the defendant board planted yew

trees on the boundary of its land. The branches of the yew trees protruded into the land occupied
by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s horse ate some of the leaves and was poisoned and died. The

court held that the defendant board was liable for bringing the poisonous yew trees onto its land.

It was a non-natural use of the land to plant such poisonous trees, and the branches of the trees

hold “escaped” by protruding into the plaintiff’s field, where he kept domestic animals

REMEDIES

Remedies available in the rule in Rylands v. fletcher are

⮚ Damages and

⮚ Injunctions

DEFENCES

In the way and in view of many defences against the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher it is becoming

extremely difficult to regard it as a strict liability tort nowadays. The defences available

nowadays are:

⮚ Act of God

⮚ Fault of the plaintiff

⮚ Contributory negligence

⮚ Consent of the plaintiff

⮚ Statutory authority; and so forth