Chapter 3 - Cause of Action: Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

RYLANDS v FLETCHER

Overview

Answer 1

1) General principles
2) Applicability in Malaysia
3) Examples of non-natural use of land
4) Assessment of damages

Question 2

RYLANDS v FLETCHER

General principles

Answer 2

Rylands v Fletcher:

• Accumulation: D brings hazardous material & keep it there. No liability if the material is naturally there.
• Mischief: The material is likely to do mischief it escapes.
• Escape: The material did escape.
• Non-natural: It involves non-natural use of the land.
• Remoteness: The damages must not be too remote.

Question 3

RYLANDS v FLETCHER

Applicability in Malaysia

Answer 3

Hoon Wee Thim v Pacific Tin Consolidated Corporation:

• R v F applies in MY by virtue of S.3.

Question 4

RYLANDS v FLETCHER

Examples of non-natural use of land - water

Answer 4

Seong Fatt Sawmills Sdn Bhd v Dunlop Malaysia Industries Sdn Bhd:

• Liability in respect of water depends on whether the water is naturally on the land; or
• It is artificially accumulated or interfered in some ways.

Question 5

RYLANDS v FLETCHER

Examples of non-natural use of land - fire

Answer 5

Abdul Rahman Che Ngah & Ors v Puteh bin Imat:

• liability may be proven since fire is a dangerous thing.
• h/ever, non-natural use of land per se does not constitute good cause of action.

Question 6

RYLANDS v FLETCHER

Assessment of damages

Answer 6

Milik Perusahaan Sdn Bhd v Kembang Mahsyur Sdn Bhd:

• One of the relevant consideration is the intention of the tortfeasor.