Strict L (Topic:Cases) Flashcards
Strict Liability
- RYLANDS V. FLETCHER
The defendant, Rylands, commissioned the construction of a reservoir on his land. Due to an oversight, the contractors failed to notice old, disused shafts beneath the reservoir site. When the reservoir was filled, water burst through these shafts, flooding Fletcher’s coal mines located on the neighbouring property. Despite Rylands not knowing these shafts and not being directly negligent, the flooding caused significant damage to Fletcher. Consequently, Fletcher, bearing the brunt of the losses, initiated legal proceedings against Rylands.
Non-natural use of land
> > > Rickards v Lothian ( 1913) AC 263
The claimant rented premises on the second floor of a building which was used for commercial purposes and ran a business from the premises he was renting. The defendant was the owner of that building. He leased the building in parts to various business tenants. The case arose because someone had maliciously blocked all the sinks in the toilets on the fourth floor of the defendant’s building.
.
The same person had then turned on all the taps, clearly with the intention of causing a flood and therefore causing damage. Eventually the flooding on the fourth floor travelled down to the second floor and damaged the property of the claimant. The claimant then started the case, basing himself on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher arguing that he had suffered damage as a result of the escape of the water from the defendant’s premises
Issues
The issue in this case was whether a finding of non-natural use of land and Rylands v Fletcher liability could be found where an escape (which otherwise might constitute such liability) was caused by the malicious actions of a third party, rather than of the Defendants. Also at issue was whether water in this context could be seen as something not naturally on the land which had been brought to it by the Defendant.
Decision / Outcome
The court held the Defendant to not be liable. First, water supplied to a building is a natural use of the land. The rule of Rylands v Fletcher requires a special use of the land. Second, Rylands v Fletcher liability will not be found where the damage was caused by a wrongful and malicious act of a third party.
> > > State of Punjab v Modern Cultivators AIR 1965 SC 17 :
In this case where damage was caused by overflow of water from a breach in a canal the Supreme Court held that use of land for construction of a canal system is an ordinary use and not a non- natural use.
The case was decided in favour of the plaintiff on the finding of negligence.
This case does not modify the rule of Rylands v Fletcher.
> > > Jay Laxmi Salt Works ( P) Ltd v State of Gujarat ( 1994) 4 SCC 1:
damage caused by overflow of water from a reclamation bandh constructed by the State of Gujarat for reclamation of vast area of land from salty water of sea.
This case was also not decided on the basis of non natural use of land but on the basis of violation of public duty and negligence which lay in defective planning and construction of the bandh.
Escape
> > > Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board
Branches of the poisonous tree were spread from defendant’s land to plaintiffs, it was held that such was escape.
> > > Read v J Lyons & Co ( 1947) AC 156 HL
the defendants undertook the management and control of an Ordinance Factory where they made high explosive shells for the Government.
There was an explosion in the factory in which the plaintiff and some others employed within the factory were injured. In the plaintiff’s claim for damages negligence was not alleged nor was it proved during the trial.
The case rested on the allegation that the defendants were manufacturing high explosive shells which they knew to be dangerous things and that the plaintiff suffered damage when one of the shells exploded.
The HL ruled that there was no escape, hence defendant not liable.
Claimant’s Default (EXCEPTIONS TO STRICT LIABILITY)
> > > Ponting v. Noakes
a horse owned by the claimant wandered into the defendant’s land and partook leaves of a yew tree. The court held that the plaintiff was denied the benefit of the strict liability rule as the horse intruded into the defendant’s premises.
No ESCAPE wrt to essentials of Strict L
Consent of the Claimant (EXCEPTIONS TO STRICT LIABILITY)
> > > Dunne v. North West Gas Board:
The plaintiffs brought an action against the Gas Board after the gas had escaped from a rupture in the water main leading to five casualties. The defendant was not held liable as it was a consented act and the Gas Board had not accumulated the substance for its own benefit.
Act of God (EXCEPTIONS TO STRICT LIABILITY)
> > > Nicholas v Marsland ( 1875)
There was an ornamental pool on the defendant’s land. The pool contained various safeguards to prevent flooding, allowing excess water to drain away naturally. However, a freak rainfall overwhelmed these safeguards. This caused the water in the pool to flood out onto the claimant’s land, damaging it. The claimant sued the defendant in negligence.
A defendant is not liable for damage caused by an ‘act of God’, because he cannot be said to have ‘caused‘ the damage. An act of God is an act of nature which is not reasonably foreseeable.
Act of Third Party (EXCEPTIONS TO STRICT LIABILITY)
> > > Box v. Jubb,
The defendant had a reservoir on their land. There was another reservoir situated at a higher level than the defendant’s. The owner of this other reservoir emptied it through a drain connected to the defendant’s reservoir causing the defendant’s reservoir to overflow and damage the claimant’s land. The claimant brought an action under Rylands v Fletcher contending that there was a non natural user of the land and that there had been an escape of water that caused damage.
Held:
The defendant was not liable for the damage as it was caused by the act of a third party over which the defendant had no control.
Statutory Authority (EXCEPTIONS TO STRICT LIABILITY)
> > > Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co.
the defendant’s company was engaged to maintain a continuous water supply under statutory authority, it was held that bursting of such water supplies was without any defendant’s fault and statutory protection would be granted.
