The rule established in Rylands v Fletcher ( elements of strictly liability).

INTRODUCTION

The case of Rylands v Fletcher[1] (1886) is a significant precedent which established the concept of strict liability. Strict liability is a tortuous liability which do not require proof of negligence or lack of care, or wrongful intention, on the part of the defendant so as to find him guilty. It states that a person who brings or accumulates on their land any dangerous substance or engages in inherently dangerous activities is liable for any resulting damage caused by the escape of such substances or activities, even in the absence of negligence or intent. However, it is essential to prove actual damage for a valid claim; the rule is not actionable per se.

In the case of Rylands v Fletcher, Rylands[2] employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on his land. During the construction, the contractors encountered abandoned mine shafts but failed to take necessary measures to secure and improve them. As a result, water from the reservoir escaped and flooded Fletcher's neighboring land, which had operational mines. Fletcher argued that his land was invaded, and Rylands should be held liable for the damages caused by the inherently dangerous activity. Rylands, on the other hand, claimed that he acted reasonably and lawfully and should not be responsible for an accident that occurred without any negligence. The case reached the House of Lords, where the principle of strict liability was developed.

CONDITIONS ON APPLICABILITY OF A RULE OF STRICT LIABILITY

The rule established in Rylands v Fletcher has been applied in various cases and continues to be relevant in both common law and jurisdictions like Tanzania. The application of strict liability is subject to certain conditions and prerequisites as follows; -

Accumulation: The defendant must bring or accumulate on their land something that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes. In the case of Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd[3], the defendant used explosives to blast rocks on their land. Although the rocks were not purposely collected or kept on the land, the explosives were deliberately accumulated. The court held the defendant liable because the deliberate accumulation of explosives caused the escape of the rocks, resulting in injury[4].

Likelihood to cause mischief: The substance or activity accumulated must be likely to cause danger if it escapes. In the case of Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee & Anor[5], the defendant stored petrol on the ground floor of a building. A fire broke out in the defendant's premises, spreading to the first floor where the plaintiff's family resided, resulting in fatalities. The court held the defendant liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, as storing petrol was considered a dangerous activity.

For-example, Company “A” operates a storage facility for volatile chemicals adjacent to a residential area where “B” resides. Company “A” accumulates significant quantities of highly flammable substances without implementing proper safety measures or considering the potential dangers. Unfortunately, a catastrophic event unfolds when a leak occurs, releasing toxic gases that rapidly spread throughout the neighborhood. As a result, “B” and several other residents suffer severe health issues and substantial property damage. In this case, the accumulation of dangerous chemicals by Company “A” and their failure to prevent their escape exemplify the conditions for the application of the rule of strict liability. Consequently, Company “A” may be held liable for the damages caused by the escape of the hazardous substances, irrespective of whether negligence or intent is proven.

Escape: There must be an escape of the accumulated substance of materials from defendant’s place to plaintiff’s place, or the consequences of the accumulated activity to another third party. In the case of Midwood & Co Ltd v Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Manchester[6], the defendants were found liable due to an explosion on their property that resulted in the escape of inflammable gas into the plaintiff's house. As a consequence, the gas ignited and set fire to the plaintiff's property. This case highlights the concept of "escape" in the context of strict liability. The interpretation of "escape" has been expanded to encompass not only the physical release or leakage of a dangerous object but also situations where the use or operation of the hazardous item leads to an event from which damage is sustained. In this case, the escape of gas and subsequent fire damage occurred as a direct result of the defendants' activities, extending the application of strict liability to encompass the broader concept of causation and the resulting harm.

The rule of strict liability finds application in several cases within the legal framework of Tanzania. Tanzania courts have recognized and applied the principle of strict liability in situations where defendants have accumulated or engaged in inherently dangerous activities that resulted in harm or damage to others, even in the absence of negligence or intent. In the case of Salim Omari v. Jackton Ongea[7], the defendant was given permission to use a portion of the appellant's land. While clearing the area, a fire started and spread due to strong winds, causing damage to the appellant's property. The court applied the principle in Rylands v Fletcher and found the defendant liable for failing to prevent the fire from spreading.

CONCLUSION

When seeking relief through a rule of strict liability, a plaintiff must establish actual damage to substantiate a valid claim. This requirement reflects the legal position that strict liability does not operate on a theory of liability per se or mere possibility of harm. Requiring proof of actual damage ensures that claims are grounded in tangible harm suffered by the plaintiff, promoting fairness and preventing frivolous or speculative claims. By establishing a causal link between the defendant's actions and the resulting damage, the plaintiff demonstrates the necessary elements for a successful strict liability claim. This legal position strikes a balance between providing a remedy for those who have suffered harm due to the defendant's activities and guarding against unfounded claims, ensuring that strict liability operates within a principled framework in the pursuit of justice.

REFERENCE

BOOKS

Dobbs, D. B., et al (2017). Dobbs' Law of Torts (2nd ed.). West Academic Publishing.

 

CASE LAWS

John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330

Miles v Forest. Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd (1918) 34 TLR 500

Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee & Anor [1957] MLJ 135

Midwood & Co Ltd v Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Manchester [1905] 2 KB 597

Salim Omari v. Jackton Ongea (1972) HCD

 

OTHER SOURCES

Yesaya, J.M, (2017) “A rule of strict liability in the case of Ryland V Fletcher”, https://rb.gy/iqytx May 21, 2023.

 

---

[1] John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330

[2] Dobbs, D. B., Hayden, P. T., & Bublick, E. L. (2017). Dobbs' Law of Torts (2nd ed.). West Academic Publishing.

[3] Miles v Forest. Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd (1918) 34 TLR 500

[4] Yesaya, J.M, (2017) “A rule of strict liability in the case of Ryland V Fletcher”, https://rb.gy/iqytx May 21, 2023.

[5] Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee & Anor [1957] MLJ 135

[6] Midwood & Co Ltd v Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Manchester [1905] 2 KB 597

[7] Salim Omari v. Jackton Ongea (1972) HCD