1. LAW OF TORTS II
PRESENTED BY:
NURUL NUR SHAHIRAH AYOP
MOHAMAD ASIF MOHD NOOR
NUR SYAFIAH ATHIRAH BT AHMAD
SHAFIQUE
AHMAD FARID RASDI
2. • The issue is whether Jebat can sue Tuah
under the law of strict liability as in the
Rules in Rylands v Fletcher for the damage
on his farm and for the injury suffered by
him due to oils spills and leakage.
3. • Strict liability is a term used to describe liability which is
imposed on the defendant without 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 tort of strict
liability.
4. Ryland V Fletcher
• Facts: The Def (Rylands) employed independent contractors to
construct a reservoir to supply water to the mill on its land; they did so
negligently, unaware of mine shafts underneath; water escaped and
flooded the Pl’s coal mine; the Pl sued its neighbour for the significant
financial damage caused.
Exchequer Decision: Blackburn J. held that where a Def brings
something on his land for his benefit and knows it is likely to cause
mischief if it escapes, he keeps it as his peril and is answerable for its
escape. Limited defences are, however, available to the Def.
HL Decision: Cairns L.J. modified the principle slightly, holding that the
use of the thing must constitute a “non-natural” use of property to
render the Def liable.
5. In order to bring an action under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in
the tort of strict liability, there are several elements must be
satisfied:
1. Accumulation
2. For his own purpose
3. Dangerous object / Likely to do mischief
4. Escape
5. Non-natural use of land
6. Forseeability
6. INTENTIONAL ACCUMULATION AND FOR
HIS OWN PURPOSE
• The rule applies to an object or thing which the
defendant purposely keeps and collects. Even if
he himself has not accumulated the thing, he
may still be liable if he has authorized the
accumulation. The liability rests in those who
have control over the thing
7. Miles V Forest Rock Granite
• The defendant was blasting rocks using explosives which
they had brought onto their land. Some of the rocks flew
onto the highway and injured the claimant. The claimant
brought an action based on the principal established
in Ryland v Fletcher.
Held:
• The defendant was liable despite the fact that the rocks
were not brought on to the land nor purposively collected
and kept there. The explosives were accumulated and
caused the rocks to escape.
8. Rainham Chemical Works V Belvedere Fish Guano
• X and Y set up a company Z Ltd. The function of Z Ltd was to
perform a contract entered into both X and Y, with another party,
to manufacture explosives. Z Ltd was to manufacture the
explosives on X and Y’s land. So Z Ltd was a licensee. An
explosion occurred, damaging neighboring property. The House
of Lords found Z Ltd liable as the licensee which had
accumulated the thing. X and Y, as occupiers and landowners
were also liable for the escape of the thing accumulated by their
licensee as the accumulation was a discharge of X and Y’s
contractual duty to another party.
9. • Applying to case above, the tank and the
oils are owned by Tuah for his orchids. The
oil has been accumulated by Tuah in the
tank with the intention of heating the oil as
to regulate the growing of his orchids in the
glasshouse for selling.
10. • However, there was corrosion at the tank and
due to that the oil leaks out and contaminates
vegetables growing on the farm belonging to
Jebat and the oils also spills out onto the road.
Due to that it had caused damage to Jebat’s
property and it also caused Jebat to skids his car
and suffered injury when he was driving at the
road where the oils had spilled. Since, Tuah had
the intention to store the oils and the tank.
Thus, he satisfied this element.
11. EXISTENCE OF DANGEROUS THINGS
• The rule applies to anything that may cause damage if
it escapes. It does not need to be dangerous per se.
• The test used is whether the thing is considered
dangerous if it may cause damage when it escapes and
it is determine through
Ordinary Experience of Mankind : Whether a lay man
would believe/foresee that the accumulated things would
cause damage if it escaped.
12. Ang Hock Tai V Tan Sum Lee & Anor
Plaintiff rented a shop house and lived on the first floor of
the building. The ground floor was sublet to the defendant
who was in the business of repairing and disturbing tyres.
Defendant stored petrol for business purpose. One
morning defendant’s premises caught fire and it spread to
the first floor and the plaintiff’s wife and child died in the
tragedy. Defendant liable under the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher as the petrol was a dangerous thing.
13. • Applying the third element, any lay man would
foresee that the oil stored would pose harm and
likely to cause mischief if it escapes, as the
nature of oil is poisonous towards biological
entity and environment. And it is a fact that oil
slick spills on any surface would cause it to
turned slippery.
14. • In this case the oil escaped its tank and spilled
into Jebat’s farm and contaminated vegetable
grown making them spoilt. And spillage on the
road caused the road to be slippery which made
it dangerous to be driven on, and in fact causes
Jebat who was driving on the road at that time to
lose control of his car and involved in and
accident.
• Thus, this element is satisfied.
15. ESCAPE
• The plaintiff must prove that there has been
an escape.
• Escape means the things had escaped
from a place over which the defendant has
control and authority to a place of which the
defendant has no control and authority.
Viscount Simon
16. Midwood & Co Ltd v Mayor, Aldermen and
Citizens of Manchester
• The defendant were held liable when an
explosion on their property caused inflammable
gas to escape into the plaintiff’s house and
consequently set fire to the plaintiff’s property.
17. • Applying to the case above, the leakage of the
tank had caused the oils to leaks out and
contaminates the vegetable farm own by Jebat
and spills out onto the road where most people
used and not under the authority of Tuah. Since,
the oils are under control of Tuah and because
of the leakage it had contaminates to a place
which is not under his control that is to Jebat’s
farm and the road thus, the oils can be said had
escape into Jebat’s property and onto the road.
18. • Therefore due to escape it had caused
damage to Jebat’s property and because of
that also Jebat suffered injury when his car
skided.
Hence, this element is satisfied.
19. NON NATURAL-USE OF LAND
• The defendant will only be liable if in bringing or
accumulating the thing onto his land, he makes a non-natural
use of the land.
Rickhards v Lothian
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 a use as is proper for the general
benefit of the community.
20. • The public benefit of the activity will probably be
considered by courts to constitute a natural use of land
but this has to be weighed against the extent of the risk
that arises from that activity.
• No conclusive test may be given as to what constitutes a
non-natural use of land. It is often equated with
extraordinary use.
• Factors which the courts have taken into account were
the quantity of the thing, the way in which it was stored
and also the location of the defendant’s land.
21. Hoon Wee Thim V Pacific Tin Consolidated
Corporation
• D built reservoir on his land. Heavy rainfall caused
water-bunds to collapse, water escaped to the adjacent
land. Caused death to the deceased by drowning.
Held:
• Using sand-bunds to separate ponds of water
constituted a dangerous and non-natural use of land
and any resulting damage would be caught under the
rule of Rylands.
22. • Growing and selling orchards in a garden center
in a rural areas can be considered as natural
use of land. However, as the conduct or activity
carried out to grow the orchids by heating an
extremely large average tanks oil in order to
heat the glasshouses can be regarded as non-natural
uses of land as the heating the oil is
highly risk activity that can cause damage to his
neighbors or surrounding if no reasonable
precaution taken.
Thus, this element can be said to be fulfilled.
23. DAMAGES MUST BE REASONABLE AND
FORESEEABLE
• Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather
plc
In the claim under strict liability the court held that the
rule in Rylands v Fletcher would only applicable if it
could be foreseen that damage of relevant type would
occur as a result of an escape and the defendant does
not take any steps to prevent the escape from
occurring thus in this case defendant is not liable as
the contamination of PCE spillage is not foreseeable. .
24. • Thus, applying the last element to Tuah’s case.
The damage resulted from oil spillage from the
escape from it its storage is of reasonable and
foreseeable one. That the oil spill on the Jebat
farm would contaminate and destroy Jebat’s
vegetable and spillage on the road would cause
an accident to occur. The damages suffered by
Jebat are reasonably foreseeable.
Thus, the last element is fulfilled.
25. CONCLUSION
As all the elements in the rules of
Ryland v Fletcher
has been fulfilled, Tuah can be sued by
Jebat under strict liability.
26. Would the advise be differ if the escape of oil had
been caused by Kasturi?
-Defence
If the escape of oil was made by Kasturi, the
escape is considered made by a third party.
27. ACT OF A THIRD PARTY
• The test used to determine whether a person is
a third party or otherwise is whether that person
act outside the defendant’s control, the
defendant may still be held liable if he ought
reasonably to have foreseen the act of the third
party. The unforeseeable act of a third party who
is not under defendant control has been
accepted to be a good defense.
28. Rickards v Lothian
A third party deliberately blocked the waste-pipe of
a lavatory basin in the defendant’s premises and
thereafter turned on the tap water. The overflowed
water then damaged the plaintiff’s property which
was situated on the floor below. Raising this
defence the defendant was held not liable by the
court for the damage.
29. • In the case of that the escape of the oil had
been cause by Kasturi which is a third party in
this case, the advise that would be given to Tuah
is that he may raise his defence as the
unforeseeable act of a third party.
• Act of Kasturi as a third party can be regarded
as unforeseeable by Tuah and act of Kasturi was
outside Tuah controls.
30. Thus, act of Kasturi can be raised as a defence
and Tuah can escape liablity under the rulkes of
Ryland v Fletcher , if and only if he can prove that
the escape of oil was caused by act of the third
party, Kasturi.
