Está en la página 1de 1

Meaning of strict Liability: Liability

imposed on the defendant without any proof

of fault on his part. D always pay for the

Rules of Rylands v Fletcher

The person who, for his own purpose, brings 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, he is prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequences of its escape.
Cambridge water co v eastern Counties Leather Plc
Appropriate to take the view that the foreseeability of damage of the relevant type should be
regarded as a prerequisite of liability in damages under the rule.

Anything likely to do mischief

if it escapes
Things need not be inherently
dangerous. It is sufficient if it is
likely to cause damage if it
escapes. Gas, noxious fumes,
explosives, fire, electricity,
water and sewage.
Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee
D business of repair and
distribute tyre, stored petrol for
business purpose. Fire broke out
spread, Ps wife and child died.
D is liable under the rule of R v
F as petrol was a dangerous




D purposely keeps or collects

object or thing itself, not
applicable if the thing brought
for the use of 3rd party ie licensee
Raiham Chemical Works v
Belvedere Fish Guano
Z held liable as licensee which
had accumulated the thing. X &
Y as occupiers and landowners
are also liable.
Giles v Walker
The thistles were the natural
growth of the Ds land and so he
could not be found liable.
An occupier who intentionally
cause something that is
naturally found on his land to
escape may still be held liable
for any consequent damage
that is caused.
Whalley v The Lancashire &
Yorkshire Railway Company
If the escape of thing naturally
accumulated was independent
of the defendants conduct, the
defendant as the occupier of
the land will not be liable.
Pontardawe Rural district
Council v Moore Gwyn
Weather change: The D not liable
as did not accumulate the rocks.
The escape was not caused by
the Ds act.
Miles v Forest Rock Granite
accumulation which caused the
escape of the rocks, rock blasting
held to ben non-natural use of


Non-natural use of Land

Escape of a thing from Ds

place to a place over which
the D has no authority and
Read v J Lyons
Inspectors of munition was
injured D were held not
liable as there is no escapes.
Keeping in does not mean
preventing an explosive
substances from exploding
but preventing a things
which may inflict mischief
from Ds place.
Weng Lok Mining Co Ltd v
Hiap Lee Brickmakers.

Rickards v Lothian
It must be a special use bringing
with it increased danger to others
and must not merely be the
ordinary use of the land or such a
case as is proper for the general
benefit of the community.
Transco plc v Stockport
Metropolitan Borough Council
High pressure pipe leaked and
resulted the water escape to the
embankment. Presence of water
was a routine function and no
hazard. The escape failed the nonnatural user requirement. The water
pipe is not a dangerous thing and is
not an unusual or non-natural use
of land.
Yat Yuen Hong Co Ltd v
Sheridanlea & anor
Appellant land situated higher
ground than respondent land. Some
earth fell onto the respondents land
and damaged respondent nursery.
The court held that piling loose
earth on a steep slope so that more
flat land would be available was a
non-natural use of land.

Ponting v Noakes
The court held that there
was no escape as the tree
and it s leaves did not
extend beyond the Ds
boundary. Horse ate the
poisonous leaves of D.
Damage caused by the
spread of fire
Sheikh Amin bin Salleh v
Chop Hup Seng
acquiesced in the use of D
premises as bakery, not held
liable in damages under R v
Lembaga Kemajuan Tnah
persekutuan v TNB
Burning vegetation on D
land cut by employee and
left lying on the ground in
hot dry weather. Ps rubber
trees damaged.
Lee Kee v Gui See
The court held that if a
person makes a fire on his
land in order to burn
inflammable, he must take