Strict liabilityDefinition:- 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 inRylands v FletcherThe 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 PElementsPrincipleCaseHeld

Dangerous things/ Thing likely to cause damage if it escapesWhat is dangerous is a question of fact. (not a reasonable mans test) The rule applies to anything that may cause damage if it escapes. Once this element is fulfilled, than the thing is a dangerous thing.

Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee & Anor

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

Intentional storage / AccumulationThis rule on applies to an object or thing which the D purposely keeps and collects. D will only be liable if he has accumulated the thing. Even if he himself has not accumulated the 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 to anything that is naturally on the land.

Giles v Walker

The thistles were the natural 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 of nuisance or negligence.

An occupier of land will not be held liable for damage caused by the escape of a thing naturally on the land, if he has not accumulated it and the escape was independent of the Ds conduct.

Pontardawe RDC v Moore-Gwyn

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

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.Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd:

The accumulation of explosives that gave rise to liability. The explosives, if they escaped would be likely to cause damage and therefore, were dangerous things. They were deliberately collected and stored by the D. There was escape as the use of the explosives caused the rocks to fall away from the Ds land and the damage was caused to the P.

EscapeEscape 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:

court held that escape must be proven before the principle in Rylands v Fletcher is applicable.

Pointing v Noakes

there was no escape as the tress and its leaves did not extend beyond the defendants boundary and so the P failed in his action.

Damage caused by the spread of fireP is still required to prove either the D himself or a person for whose conduct he was answerable has been negligent. The negligence must have caused either the commencement of the fire or its spreading to the Ps premises, or that the D has caused or permitted to exist on his premises, a source of fire danger which constituted a material injury to the Ps property. No presumption like in common law.

Liability is imposed for the spread of fire if the spread was due to the default of the Ds servant, his guest and even his independent contractor.Liability will be excluded where the fire spread or occurred due to an act of nature or the act of a stranger or trespasses over whom the defendant has no control.Knowledge of the fire , albeit started by a party over whom the D has no control imposes a duty on him to extinguish it within a reasonable time.

In circumstances where there is no escape of anything brought onto the Ds land, the D must be proved to have satisfied the following conditions as laid down inLembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan v TNB, a) Firstly, the D had brought onto their land things likely to catch fire and kept them there in such condition that if they did ignite, the fire would be likely to spread to the Ps landb) The D did these things in the course of some non-natural use of land, andc) The things had ignited and the fire has spread to the Ps land.Lee Kee v Gui See & Anor

The court found for the P as the burning vegetation on the Ds land had been cut by the Ds employees or agents and left there in hot and dry weather. The D should have known that fires could break out from the combustible cut the vegetation and would spread to the Ps property. The D use of the land was found to be a non-natural use.

If a person makes a fire on his land in order to burn something which is inflammable, he must take reasonable steps to prevent the fire from spreading. This duty is absolute and non-delegable.

Non-natural use of land

Meaning: (Rickards v Lothian[1913] AC 263 at 280 PC)It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and mustnot merely be the ordinary use of the landorsuch a 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 taken into consideration, so that what is dangerous or constitutes a non-natural use of land may differ in different circumstances.The court willbalancetheprobability of damage occurring plus the seriousness of the probable damage compared to thesocial benefit derived from it.

Factors to be taken into account: thequantityof the thing, theway in which it was storedand also thelocation of Ds land:

Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England Ltd[1967] 2 QB 530

Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board[1878] 4 Ex D 5

D liable as t planting a poisonous tree is not a natural use of land. this decision may be justified on the basis that an escape of the tree had occurred as the branches and leaves had encroached onto the Ps land.

Yat Yuen Hong Co Ltd v Sheridanlea & AnorPiling loose earth on a steep slope so that more flat land would be available was a non-natural use of land.