Strict liability

Definition:
- a term used to describe liability which is imposed on D without any proof of
fault on his part. So although the defendant might have taken all reasonable
precautions to avoid or minimize risks arising from his activity, he may still be
found liable if the tort which has arisen falls under the category of trict liability
torts.
-

Intention Irrelevant:

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher

The Defendants themselves were not negligent and neither were they
vicariously liable for the negligence of their independent contractors, but the
HOL held them liable to the P
Elements
Dangerous
things/ Thing
likely to cause
damage if it
escapes

Principle

Case

What is dangerous is

Ang Hock Tai v

a question of fact.

Tan Sum Lee &

(not

Anor

reasonable

mans test) The rule

applies
that

to

anything

may

cause

damage if it escapes.
Once this element is
fulfilled,

than

the

thing is a dangerous
thing.

Intentional
storage /
Accumulation

This rule on applies

to an object or thing
which

the

purposely keeps and

collects. D will only
be liable if he has
accumulated
thing.
himself

Even
has

accumulated

the
if

he
not
the

Held
D liable under
the rule in
Rylands v
Fletcher as the
petrol was a
dangerous thing

thing, he may still be

liable

if

he

has

authorised

the

accumulation.

The

liability rests in those

who

have

control

over the thing.

Rule is not applicable

Giles v Walker

The thistles were

to anything that is

the

natural

naturally on the land.

growth of the Ds
land despite the
fact

that

the

thistles grew on
his land due to
his

leaving

unattended after
he had ploughed
it. In cases like
this, liability may
be sought under
the

tort

nuisance

of
or

negligence.

will not be held liable

RDC

for

Gwyn

D was not liable

as he did not
accumulate the
rocks. Moreover
the escape was
not caused by
the Ds act.

Miles v Forest

The accumulation

An occupier of land
damage

caused

Pontardawe
v

Moore-

by the escape of a
thing naturally on the
land, if he has not
accumulated
the

it

escape

independent

and
was

of

the

Ds conduct.

An occupier of land
who intentionally

causes something
that is naturally
found on his land to
escape may still be
held liable for any
consequent damage
that is caused to the
P.

Rock

Granite

of explosives that

Co

gave

rise

(Leicestershire)

liability.

Ltd:

explosives,

to
The

they

if

escaped

would be likely to
cause

damage

and

therefore,

were

dangerous

things. They were

deliberately
collected

and

stored by the D.
There

was

escape
use

as
of

the
the

explosives
caused the rocks
to fall away from
the Ds land and
the damage was
caused to the P.

Escape

Escape means the

thing has escaped
from a place over
which the D has no
control and authority
to a place over which
the D has no control
and authority.

Weng

Lok

Mining Co Ltd v
Hiap

Lee

Brickmakers
Ltd:

Pointing
Noakes

court held that

escape must be
proven before
the principle in
Rylands v
Fletcher is
applicable.
there
escape
tress
leaves
extend
the

was

no

as

the

and

its

did

not

beyond

defendants

boundary and so
the P failed in his

action.

Damage caused by

In circumstances

The court found

the spread of fire

where there is no

for the P as the

P is still required to

escape

burning

prove either the D

anything brought

vegetation on the

himself or a person

onto the Ds land,

Ds

for whose conduct he

the D must be

been cut by the

was answerable has

proved

Ds employees or

been negligent.

The

satisfied

must

following

there in hot and

conditions as laid

dry weather. The

down

in Lembaga

known that fires

spreading to the Ps

Kemajuan

could break out

premises, or that the

Tanah

from

the

Persekutuan

combustible

cut

negligence
have
the
of

caused

either

commencement
the

has

fire

or

caused

its

or

of

to

permitted to exist on

TNB, a)

his

the

premises,

have
the

Firstly,

had

agents

and

should

the

had

left

have

vegetation

and would spread

source of fire danger

brought

which constituted a

their land things

property. The D

material injury to the

likely to catch fire

use of the land

Ps

and

property.

presumption

like

No
in

common law.

there

onto

land

the

Ps

kept

them

was found to be

in

such

condition that if
they

to

did

non-natural

use.

ignite,

the fire would be

likely to spread to
Liability

is

imposed

the Ps land

for the spread of fire

if the spread was due

b)

to the default of the

these

Ds servant, his guest

the

and

some non-natural

even

his

independent

The D did
things

in

course

of

use of land, and

contractor.
c)
Liability

will

be

excluded where the

The things

had ignited and

the

fire

has

If a person makes

fire

spread

or

occurred due to an

spread to the Ps

a fire on his land

land.

in order to burn

act of nature or the

something which

act of a stranger or

Lee Kee v Gui

is

trespasses

See & Anor

he

over

inflammable,
must

take

whom the defendant

reasonable steps

has no control.

to

Knowledge

of

the

prevent

the

fire

from

spreading.

This

fire , albeit started by

duty is absolute

a party over whom

and

the D has no control

delegable.

imposes a duty on
him to extinguish it
within a reasonable
time.

Non-natural

Meaning: (Rickards v

use of land

Lothian [1913]

AC

263 at 280 PC)

It

must

be

some

special use bringing

with

it

increased

danger 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.

Read v Lyons
All factors such as
time, location and the
ordinary activities of
mankind

must

be

non-

taken

into

consideration, so that
what is dangerous or
constitutes

non-

natural use of land

may differ in different
circumstances.
The court
will balance the prob
ability of damage
occurring plus the
seriousness of the
probable damage
compared to
the social benefit
derived from it.
Factors to be taken

Mason

into

Auto

account:

the quantity of
thing,
which

the way
it

stored and

the
in
was

Levy

Parts

of

England
Ltd [1967] 2 QB
530

also

the location of Ds
land:
Crowhurst

liable

as

Amersham

planting

Burial

poisonous tree is

Board [1878] 4 not a natural use

Ex D 5

of

land.

this

decision may be
justified
basis

on

the

that

an

escape

of

the

tree had occurred

as the branches
and leaves had
encroached onto

the Ps land.
Yat Yuen Hong

Piling loose earth

Co

on a steep slope

&

so that more flat

Ltd

Sheridanlea
Anor

land

would

be

available was a
non-natural
of land.

use