LAW OF TORTS II

PRESENTED BY:

NURUL NUR SHAHIRAH AYOPMOHAMAD ASIF MOHD NOOR

NUR SYAFIAH ATHIRAH BT AHMAD SHAFIQUE

AHMAD FARID RASDI

• 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.

• 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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

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.

• 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.

• 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.

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

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.

• 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.

• 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.

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.

• 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.

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.

• 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.

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. .

• 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.

CONCLUSION

As all the elements in the rules of

Ryland v Fletcher

has been fulfilled, Tuah can be sued by

Jebat under strict liability.

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.

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 .

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.

• 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.

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.