STRICT LIABILITY

THE RULE IN
RYLANDS v. FLETCHER
Strict liability / the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a legal
doctrine that holds a party responsible for their actions
without the plaintiff having to prove negligence or fault.
The essence of the rule is when dangerous things are
brought to the land, and it somehow escapes causing
damage to another
….such as keeping wild animals, explosives, chemicals, gas
etc…
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1

John Rylands (D) constructed a reservoir on

his rented land to supply water to his
steam-powered textile mill.

Thomas Fletcher (C) operated mines on

nearby land and had tunnelled up to old
disused mines which were under the land
where Rylands' reservoir was located.

D’s contractors did not properly

block the shaft beneath, and when
filling the reservoir, the water
escaped down the shaft and flooded
C’s mines.
RYLANDS V FLETCHER [1868] UKHL 1

• Court held D was liable even though he was not negligent.

• The English Court of Exchequer: “…We think that the true
law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on
his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril.”
• “If he does not do so, (he) is prima facie answerable for all
the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.”
ELEMENTS OF THE RULE

Elements necessary to prove:

1. The non-natural use of land by D

2. Escape of the thing that causes

damage of P’s land

3. The foreseeability of damage by D

 1. NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND “Here the D have brought…
for the purposes of their
business, dangerous
materials (petrol & rubber)
Pacific Tin Consolidated Corp v Hoon which would not naturally
Issue : Is water accumulated on the Df land for tin mining is be upon the premises, and
a non-natural use of the land – Millions of gallons of water, they are under an
on an inclined slope obligation.. So as not to
What amounts to the non-natural use of land? cause mischief.”

“the said bund was put to uses… unsuitable and hazardous Ang Hock Hai v Tan Sum Lee
to their neighbor… (ie) when it was made to hold water in
great quantities instead of slimes”

“Non-natural use must be some

special use bringing with it increased
dangers to others, and must not
merely be the ordinary use of the
land or such use as is proper for the
general benefit of the community”

Rickards v Lothian
PACIFIC TIN CONSOLIDATED CORP
V HOON WEE THIM [1967] 2 MLJ 35
• App maintained on their lands large ponds for tin dredge-mining
operations. They separated each ponds with bunds (embankment street).

• The ponds were above ground level. Water flow from one pond to another
by means of spillways.

• The land was located in an inclined valley. A large breach in the bund
between two large ponds, which together held nearly 500mil gallons of
water, caused a violent outflow to the lower lands. This caused extensive
damage to life and property to the adjacent lands.
PACIFIC TIN CONSOLIDATED CORP
V HOON WEE THIM [1967] 2 MLJ 35
• Federal Court applied the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and held Appellant
liable. It was found unusual for tin mines in Malaya to have pools above
ground level for retaining water. The normal practice is to have mines holes
below ground level to retail slimes or tin tailings.

• “Natural user of their property does not imply that miners had carte blanche to
carry on their mining operations in any manner they think fit, however
hazardous to their neighbours… Consequently I hold that the use to which the
sand bund was put in this case was a non-natural user of land.” (Ong Hock
Thye)

• “The bund was put to a non-natural use when it was made to hold water in
great quantities instead of slimes” (Barakbah LP)
Dato’ Dr Harnam Singh v
Renal Link (KL) Sdn Bhd
D who ran a hemodialysis
centre was liable under
the rule for the escape of
gases into P’s premises
from the use of formalin
and renalin in the
operation of the centre. It
produced noxious gases
It produced noxious gas
that escaped into P’s clinic
one floor below that of
the D. P suffered
discomfort, sickness and
injury
Ang Hock Hai v Tan Sum
Lee
D carried on the business
of tyre repairers and tyre
dealers. For that purpose
he kept petrol on the
premises, to be mixed
with rubber and gum. P
lived on the upper floor of
the D’s premises.
Fire broke out at the
premise for unknown
cause. It caused three
explosions followed by a
burst of flame that quickly
destroyed the premises.
P’s wife and son died.
What is non natural use - no universal test
Court will look at defendants conduct, the purpose of the use on the land.
Eg : Water, electricity , gas tank for domestic purposes is a natural use of the land.

What about collection of 30 gas tanks in the house ?

Collection of snakes or exotic wildlife in a home? What if in zoo ?
2. Escape of the thing:

In Read v J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. [1947]

• App (worked in the R’s ammunition factory)
suffered injury when a shell that was being
manufactured exploded.

• Claim under the rule of Rylands v Fletcher was not

successful because there had been no escape of
the thing that inflicted the injury.

• To succeed, there must be an escape from the

place where the D has occupation or control, to a
place outside his occupation/control
WOON TAN KAN V ASIAN RARE EARTH SDN
BHD [1992]
ISSUES

• Plaintiffs:
• Claimed defendant’s activities produced dangerous radioactive gases which escaped
from the plant to their living area, causing serious biological damage including cancer;
• Claimed that the product and waste was not stored disposed of in a sufficiently safe
manner, respectively.
• Applied for injunctions to restrain defendant from operating and continuing to operate;

• Sought various declarations on negligence, nuisance and strict liability seeking

damages from defendant’s.

• Court held that the Pf could not prove actual damage

• Means ???
 3. Foreseeability
of damage
Is Df to be liable for all the consequences
That result from the escape

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern

Counties Leather plc (1994)
• C extracts water to supply to the public. It then discovered that the water
was contaminated with a solvent (a liquid substance). It emerged that the
solvent came from the Eastern Counties Leather plc tannery, about 1.3 miles
from the borehole.

• C claimed on negligence, nuisance and under rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

• As the D could not have foreseen the damage suffered by C, the claims were
nor successful.
chemical
Chemical PCE – used at Df factory

Spill – little by little through concrete floor

50 metres below the ground

Spill was calculated at 8 m per day

9 months later – PCE reacged the Pfs

Borehole, after travelling a distance of
1.3 miles
• As the D could not have foreseen the damage
suffered by C, the claims were nor successful.
• Foreseeability is a prerequisite to liability in SL
AVAILABLE DEFENCES…

1. Consent of the plaintiff

2. Default of the plaintiff
3. Act of God
4. Act of a stranger
5. Statutory authority
6. Common benefit
 • Sheikh Amin b Salleh v Chop Hup Seng
Consent of • Land lord knew that his tenant was builing a brick oven on the premises
• Consented to the accumulation f the thing on the premises
Plaintiff • Df liable in negligence but to SL

Default of the
• If the Pf solely caused the damage, Df will not be liable
• Ponting v Noakes
• Pf ‘s horse nibbled at the poisonous trees near the Df’s boundry and died
Plaintiff • Df not liable due to the Pfs own intrusion

• This happens when escape happens through natural causes without human intervention,
that no human foresight can provide against
• Nichols v Marsland (1876) – The Df artificial lake (the made by damming a stream) broke

Act of God the artificial barriers due to a most violent storm and caused damage to Pfs property –
defence applied - but decision has been critisised
• Hoo wee Thim v Pacific Tin Consolidated – heavy storm in Malaysia could certainly not
be held to be a act of God

Act of Stranger
(where D has no • Rickards v Lothian
• Df not liable when a stranger deliberately turned on a water pipe on the Df’s
premise that caused flooding in the Pf’s premises
control)
 If the escape is a direct result of carrying out the statutory duty, Df wont
be liable. Some statutes exempt public bodies from storing water, gas etc
Statutory Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) – Df not liable due to pipe burst
Woon Tan Kan’s Case – DF said they had licence to run the rare earth
Authority industry. However, the court said they were not performing a statutory
duty but merely granted a license to manufacture earth.

Where the source of danger is maintained for the common benefit of the
Pf and Df, Df not liable for its escape
Carstairs v Taylor
Common benefit A (pf tenant - lower) and B (upper) maintained a box for collection of
water from the gutter, that was discharged into the ground
A rat gnawed a hole in the box – water escaped and damaged A’s goods
Df not liable under SL

Dunne v North Western Gas Board

Df was not liable due to a Gas escape as it was for common benefit. But
this has been critisised - unfair to plaintiff – the defence ony should be
considered if the pf has consented to the risk of injury. Coz sometimes
th Pf doesn’t have a choice like in Carstairs
MODERN POSITION OF THE RULE IN
RYLANDS

• Today it seldom forms a basis in courts and it might be losing its function
• Why?
• 1. Negligence is more dominant – courts tend to look for a fault (See Dunne’s case)
• 2. SL has its origins from Private Nuisance - SL is only resorted to when the
accumulated thing escapes and causes injury
• 3. Nowadays, Courts exclude accumulation that do not involve unreasonable risk.
Water and gas are are not anymore considered non natural uses although it does
have potential of causing injury
• 4. Act of God also loosing its significance due to modern technology
• Therefore, SL is only resorted to when the Pf is really unable to find fault of the DF