1

Strict Liability 5 Elements of Strict Liability

1.​ Dangerous things likely to cause damage if escapes 危险东西的存在

➔​ Eg. vibrations, electricity, gas, rusty wires
Definition ➔​ 在Rylands的案子, 大量的水就是危险物品

A person can be held responsible for causing harm even without proof of fault,
carelessness, or intent to harm. The injured party does not need to prove Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee
negligence, and the tortfeasor can still be liable even if they took all precautions.
The mental state or intention of the tortfeasor is not considered in strict liability Facts:
cases. The plaintiff rented a shophouse and lived upstairs with his family. He
rented the ground floor to the defendant, who ran a tyre shop and kept
即使那一方没有过错，但是也需要负起责任。As an example, 一个卖家卖的东西出了 petrol there. One day, a fire started in the shop, and the petrol made the
问题，即使他不是出产的人，也需要负起责任。 fire spread to the upper floor, killing the plaintiff’s wife and child.

Court:
The defendant liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, because petrol
is a dangerous substance, and he had kept it on the property.
Key Cases

Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co

Rylands v Fletcher
Facts:
➔​ 这个案子established the rule of strict liability The defendant used explosives to blast rocks on their land. Some rocks
flew off and injured the plaintiff.
Facts:
The appellant, a mill owner (Rylands), hired independent contractors to build a Court:
reservoir 水库on his land. Unknown to him, there were old, unblocked mine shafts The court held the defendant liable under strict liability, because using
under the land that connected to the respondent’s mine 矿井. When the reservoir explosives is dangerous and considered a non-natural use of land.
was filled, water escaped through the shafts and flooded the respondent’s mine.

Court:
➢​ Even though Rylands didn’t know about the shafts and wasn’t careless, the
court said he was still responsible.
➢​ The rule says if someone brings something dangerous onto their land and it
escapes and causes harm, they are responsible, even if they were careful.
 2

2.​ Intentional storage / Accumulation by defendant 被告故意储存危险物品 3.​ The thing must escape
➔​ Must purposely collect or store something on their land for their own ➔​ The plaintiff must prove that something dangerous actually escaped from
use. If the property is rented out, then the tenant (not the owner) may be the defendant’s land to somewhere the defendant has no control over
responsible. (like the plaintiff’s property).
➔​ Escape 代表危险物必须离开defendant的土地 & cause damage to 别人的
土地
Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guano

Facts: ●​ Cases where there was escape

X and Y set up a company with Z Ltd, operating as a factory. Z was a
licensee and he stored explosives. An explosion happened and damaged Milik Perusahaan v Kembang Masyhur
neighbouring properties and killed many.
Facts:
Court: Mud and soil from the defendant’s land slid onto the plaintiff’s lower
The House of Lords (HOL) found Z liable because Z was the one who land.
stored the dangerous materials. X and Y were also held liable because
they had a shared intention with Z to carry out the activity, as shown in the Court:
contract they signed together. The court held the defendant was liable.

Abdul Aziz v Tenaga Nasional

Giles v Walker
Facts:
Facts: TNB owned and operated a hydroelectric dam in Cameron
The defendant didn’t plant anything but left land unattended, and thistles Highlands. The dam’s workers released a large volume of water
naturally grew and spread to the neighbor’s land. from the dam.

Court: This caused a massive flood, which destroyed the homes, farms,
The court said the defendant was not liable because it was natural and businesses of the residents living downstream. Tragically, the
growth. flood also caused the loss of four lives.

Court:
The court held TNB liable. The water stored in the dam was
considered a dangerous thing. When they released the water and
it caused flooding and damage, it counted as an escape.
 3

●​ Fire cases 4.​ Non-natural use of land

-​ Plaintiff must show the escaped thing directly caused ➔​ Defendants must have brought or stored something dangerous on their
damage. Sometimes also has to prove the defendant was land for a non-natural use.
negligent. ➔​ This means it wasn’t an ordinary or everyday use of land.

Musgrove v Pandelis Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board

3 rules for fire damage: Facts:

The defendant planted a poisonous tree on his land, and its branches and
1.​ Dangerous things were stored in a way that could cause leaves extended into the plaintiff’s land. The plaintiff’s horse ate the
fire. leaves and died.
2.​ These things were used in a non-natural way.
3.​ Fire started and spread to the plaintiff’s land. Court:
The defendant was liable because planting a poisonous tree near
another’s land was a non-natural use of land.
Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan (FELDA) v Tenaga
Nasional Berhad (TNB) Abdul Rahman v Puteh Samat

Facts: Facts:
TNB, was carrying out land clearing activities using fire. However, A contractor was hired to clean a water canal that passed through a
they failed to properly extinguish the fire. As a result, the fire plaintiff’s rubber plantation. While clearing bushes 杂草, the contractor set
spread and caused damage to the property belonging to the the bushes on fire. But the fire got out of control and spread to the rubber
FELDA. estate, burning the rubber trees.

Court: Court:
The court held TNB liable. TNB failed to control the fire and The court held the contractor was responsible, because burning the
allowed it to escape. bushes was a dangerous and non-natural use of the land, and the fire
escaped and caused damage.

Petronas Gas Bhd v DWZ Industries

Facts:
Petronas Gas owned land with a gas pipeline under it. A nearby company,
DWZ Industries, ran a factory next to Petronas’s land.

DWZ built a pipe that went under Petronas’s land without

permission.They used the pipe to release untreated toxic liquid. This
toxic waste damaged Petronas’s gas pipeline.
 4

Court: Defences
The court found DWZ liable because they had accumulated a dangerous
substance and allowed it to escape. It also amounted to a non-natural 1.​ Consent of the plaintiff
use of land. ➔​ If the plaintiff knew and agreed to the dangerous activity, the defendant
may not be liable. 受害者知情并同意

5.​ Foreseeability of damage Sheikh Amin v Chop Hup Seng

➔​ The damage caused by the escape must be something the defendant could
reasonably foresee. The plaintiff allowed the defendant to run a bakery. A fire broke out, but the
➔​ The plaintiff can claim damages for harm to land, buildings, or items on the court said the plaintiff had consented, so no liability.
land, but only if the damage is a direct result of the escape.

2.​ Common benefit

Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather ➔​ If the dangerous thing was used for the benefit of both the plaintiff and
defendant, the defendant might not be liable.
Facts:
Chemicals from the defendant’s leather factory slowly leaked into the ground
and reached the plaintiff’s water supply 50 meters away. The plaintiff had to Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
spend £1 million to find a new water source.
Peters rented a shop next to a theatre. The theatre had a sprinkler system
Court: to stop fires. The pipes burst due to cold weather and flooded Peters' shop.
The court said the damage was not foreseeable, so the defendant was not
liable. The court also found that storing the chemicals was not a "non-natural The sprinkler was there to protect both. The theatre was not responsible.
use" of land because it benefited the public (like providing jobs).
Carstairs v Taylor

Carstairs rented the ground floor of a building. Taylor lived on the upper
floor. Rainwater was collected through a gutter system. Rats made holes in
the system, and water leaked into Carstairs' shop.
Can SL be used to claim damages for personal injury?

➔​ 是可以的，但是only under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher The gutter system helped both upstairs and downstairs tenants. It was an
➔​ 这也就代表必须符合前4个element accident (caused by rats). So, Taylor was not responsible.

Strict Liability = No need to prove fault

➢​ You don’t have to prove that the person was careless (negligent) — just
that all the above elements are met.
 5

3.​ Act of a third party

Defendant liable because he had interfered with nature and should have
➔​ If the damage was caused by someone else outside the defendant’s
taken steps to prevent flooding.
control, the defendant may not be liable.

Rickards v Lothian
5.​ Plaintiff’s own fault
A stranger blocked pipes and turned on water. Water overflowed and ➔​ If the plaintiff caused the damage or was partly responsible, the
damaged the floor below, which belonged to the plaintiff. defendant might not be liable.

Defendant not liable. Ponting v Noakes

Box v Jubb The plaintiff’s horse entered the defendant’s land and ate some poisonous
plants, which caused the horse to die.
The defendant had a reservoir 水库 that overflowed and damaged the
plaintiff’s land. However, the overflow happened because the defendant’s The defendant was not responsible because the horse trespassed onto the
neighbour’s reservoir flooded into his land first. land. Since the damage happened because of the plaintiff’s own mistake,
the claim failed.
Defendant not liable.

6.​ Statutory Authority

4.​ Act of god ➔​ If the defendant was doing something they were required to do by law,
➔​ If the escape was caused by a natural event that is unforeseeable and they may not be liable.
uncontrollable, the defendant may be excused.

Green v Chelsea Waterworks

Nichols v Marsland
The defendant was a water company that had a legal duty to supply water
The defendant had built artificial lakes. One day, a very heavy and to the public. One day, a pipe burst, and water flooded the plaintiff’s
unusual rainstorm caused the lakes to overflow and destroy nearby property.
bridges.

Defendant not liable. Even though there was damage, the court held that the defendant was not
liable because they were acting under a legal obligation (a statute). Since
Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway Co they didn’t act negligently and the burst was accidental, they were protected
by statutory authority.
The defendant changed the natural flow of a stream to build a public pool.
After a heavy rainfall, the pool overflowed, and water flowed onto the
plaintiff’s land, causing damage.
 6

3 areas of Strict Liability

1.​ Product Liability

➔​ Happens when someone is hurt by a defective or dangerous product.
➔​ No need to prove negligence (carelessness) by the manufacturer.

To succeed, the injured person MUST PROVE

a.​ They used the product as intended

b.​ The product had a dangerous defect
c.​ The defect caused injury

➔​ Anyone injured by the product (not just the buyer) can claim

2.​ Animal Bites

➔​ Pet owners can be held strictly liable if their animal bites someone — even
if they were careful or didn’t know the pet was dangerous.

To succeed, the injured person MUST PROVE

a.​ They were not trespassing or breaking the law.

b.​ They didn’t provoke 惹 the animal.
c.​ The bite happened and caused harm.

3.​ Abnormally Dangerous Activities

➔​ Involves high-risk activities (like using explosives, toxic chemicals, etc.).
➔​ No need to prove negligence — the activity is so dangerous that harm is
almost expected.

To succeed, the injured person MUST PROVE

a.​ The defendant did a very dangerous activity.

b.​ The activity caused injury or damage.
c.​ The injury was foreseeable.