Strict liability holds that a person who brings anything dangerous onto their land that is likely to cause damage if it escapes is liable for any damage caused, regardless of negligence. This principle was established in Rylands v. Fletcher (1866). The defendant had constructed a reservoir that flooded into abandoned mine shafts leading to the plaintiff's land, damaging it. The court found the defendant liable, establishing that those who use land in a non-natural way, for their own benefit and which increases danger from escape, are strictly liable for any damages from escape. For strict liability to apply, it must be proven that the defendant brought a non-natural use of land, the thing escaped from where the defendant occupied or controlled the

1. STRICT LIABILITYSTRICT LIABILITY
THE RULE IN REYLANDS V FLETCHER (1866)THE RULE IN REYLANDS V FLETCHER (1866)
The D constructed a reservoir upon his land in order to supply
water to his mill.There was a disused and filled-up shaft of an old
coal mine the passages of which communicated with the adjoining
mine of P. Due to the neglence of the contractor appointed by D,
this fact was not discovered and the danger caused by it was not
guarded.When the reservoir was filled up by water ,the water
escape to P`s land through the shaft.
HL: D was liable.
Blackburn J :
`The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands
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 is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape’
This case had develop the principle of Strict liability as one of torts
action.
ELEMENTS TO PROVE STRICT
LIABILITY
NON NATURAL USE OF LAND
Defendant brings into his land,
something which is for special use which will
increase danger to others.
Richards v Lothian
It is question of fact.Depend on circumstances,social
utility.
(1) Water
Liability in respect of water depends on
whether the water is naturally on the
land or it is artificially accumulated or
interfered with in some way.
Seong Fatt Sawmill Sdn.Bhd. v
Dunlop M`sia Industries Sdb.Bhd.
D had artificially accumulated the
rainwater with the excavation which was
an alteration to the nature of the land.
Held liable.
Abd. Hamid Abd Rashid Dr. & Anor v
Jurusan M`sia Consultants (sued as a
firm) & 4 Ors.
(2) Fire
If for purpose of cooking or domestic
use –natural
But if used in industrial
process,unlicenced locomotive steam
enjine shoot out spark at highway it is
non natural use.
(4 ) Other activities
1 Planting poisonous tree in the land-
Non Natural
Crowhurst v Amersham
Burial Board
2 Let propertis to undesirable tenant
for own benefit if they defecated the
neigbour –N.Natural . AG v Corke
ESCAPE
Escape from the place where
the D has occupation or control
over land to a place which is
outside his occupation or control
Note: the victim must be outside
the land of D
Read v Lyons
Occupant or Control
1.D must occupy or has control
over the land from which the
thing escape.
2.Damage to car parked at
public street by acid emitted by
D`s boiler house held liable.
Halsey v Esso Petroleum
3.Gas escaped from leaking
pipe under Public St.D who
maintain the pipe held liable.
Benning v Wong
4.an owner who is not in
occupation of the land at the
time of the escape may be liable
if he authorised the
accumulation which escape.
Rainham Chemical works v
Belvedere Fish Guano Co.
Personel Injury
l. The rule in Reylands only
covers property damage only
obiter in Read v Lyons
2. In some cases the rule
extended to personal injury.
3. A Chair O`plane which
caused personal injury to P
due to D`s negligence held
liable.
Hale v Jennings Bros.
Personal injury claimable.
Yat Yuen Hong Co.Ltd v
Sheridan
3. But it is not settle yet
Dunne v North Western Gas
Board.
FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE
The Defendant must reasonably
foerese that plaintiff will suffer the
damage
The rule had extended in
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern
Countries Leather.
(3)Electricity,Explosive/
Chemical
Electricity/gas for domestic use OK
But imflamable kept indoor if escape
and cause fire/explode not natural.
Ang Hock Hai v Tan Sum Lee
(petrol for tyre business-liable)
Reid v Lyon(manufacture amunition during
war to defeat enemy and exploded OK)
British Celanese Ltd v A.Hunt
(Manufacture electrical/electronic is for
community if escape OK.)