RULE IN Rylands sample answer PDF

Preview

Summary

Issue: Whether the Clean Clear Enterprise is liable for strict liability towards Suri, Puncak Air Sdn Bhd and the consumers in the area.1.Whether the Clean Clear Enterprise can be made liable under the rule in Rylands against Fletcher for the damages suffered by the Suri, Puncak Air Sdn Bhd and the ...

Description

RULE IN RYLANDS Tuesday, 4 May, 2021

8:17 PM

Issue: 1. Whether the Clean Clear Enterprise is liable for strict liability towards Suri, Puncak Air Sdn Bhd and the consumers in the area. 2. Whether the Clean Clear Enterprise can be made liable under the rule in Rylands against Fletcher for the damages suffered by the Suri, Puncak Air Sdn Bhd and the consumers in the area. 3. Whether Suri can claim the remedies?

Only to the Suri and the Suri and Puncak Air Sdn Bhd suffered the damages.

Law: 1. Definition of strict liability based on Rule of Rylands/the rule of law

In Rylands v Fletcher, the judge defined strict liability as

What is meant by the law of strict liability Explain the rule and the case. Brief facts of the case. What is the statement by the judges about the rule

2. Elements that need to be fulfilled for strict liability establish. a) The defendant has brought something onto his land

Accumulation - The def intentionally keeps and collect. Does not apply to things naturally - Case: Giles v Walker (not liable as the things that went into his land are natural growth from the defendant's land) - Case: Pontardawe RDC v Moore-Gwyn (weather change caused some rocks flew to the plaintiff's house. Not liable as he did not accumulated/keeps the rocks. Might found liable if the defendant intentionally cause the natural thing on his land to escape and cause damage to the plaintiff) - Case: Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) (defendant used explosive to blast some rocks on his land and the rocks fell onto the land of the plaintiff and caused damage/injury. Found liable even if the rocks were not purposely collected/kept but the explosive were purposely collected/kept) For his own purpose - Storing the thing for his own purpose - Not applied if the thing as brought for someone's used - Eg; if a licensee kept the thing on the land, the thing escape and cause damage, the licensee will be held liable. The landowner will only be held liable if he authorized the accumulation of the things. - Case: Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guano (the defendants set up the company name Z ltd. The company manufacture the explosive on the defendant's land and therefore Z ltd is a licensee. An explosion occurred and damages the neighbouring property. Z ltd was held liable as he is a licensee wo had accumulated the ting. X and Y also was found liable as a occupier and landowner as they authorized the accumulations) b) The thing was something likely to do mischief if it escaped

Anything that may cause damage if it escape, therefore generally the object is a dangerous thing However, there are some object that are not dangerous but will be dangerous if it escape Cause damage - It may cause damage if escape through the ordinary experience of mankind - Case: Hale v Jennings ( - Case: Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee ( plaintiff live on the 1st floor of a shophouse. The defendant was a businessman of repairing and distributing tyres. He stored petrol in his store for business' purpose. The it was caught on fire and the plaintiff and his family died. Was held liable as petrol is a dangerous substances)

Escape - The thing that has been brought must escape from its own land. - Read v Lyons per Viscount Simon defined escape as "escape from a place where the defendant has control over the land to a place which outside his control" - Lord Potter defined escape as "where the dangerous object has been maintained by the defendant to some place that is not subjected to its control" - Case: Read v Lyons ( an inspector was injured when the shell in the defendant's factory exploded and cause injuries. Was not held liable as the dangerous thing is not escape from its own place and has no control over it) - Case: Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board ( poisonous branches of tree was outside of the defendant's house. A cow eat it and dead. The defendant was found liable as the dangerous escape outside of his property. - Case: Ponting v Noakes ( the plaintiff horse intruded into his house and ate poisonous leaves of the defendant's tree. The defendant was not found liable as the object is not escape from its own property)

c) The defendant made a 'non-natural use' of his land Non-natural use

- The defendant will only found liable if in accumulating the things on his land and makes a "non-natural use" - Rickards v Lothian defines non-natural use as "some special uses that bring danger to other and it must not be merely be the ordinary use of land or such is proper/in general benefits the community" - Case: Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ( a large water pipe that supply a block of flat exploded and release gas pipes and cost the claimants a lot of money to make safe. The defendants was not found liable as the water pipe for domestic use which service a block of flat a water supply. Therefore, it is a natural use Foreseeability of damage

- The escape must cause damage - The damage must reasonably foreseeable as mentioned in the case of Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather 3. Who can sue/be sued Who can sue - Based on the rule in Rylands, this principle is applicable between the "occupier in respect of their land" - Thus, they must show an interest in the land

Who can be sued - Must be the occupier who has the control over the land - A party who is responsible for the accumulation of the dangerous thing - Has a control over it at the time of it escape

4. Defences Consent - Does not apply if the things was escape with the consent of the plaintiff (authority). - Case: Sheikh Amin B. Salleh v Chop Hup Seng - It will limited to an action in negligence Common Benefit

- If the dangerous things exist for the benefits of both party, then the defendant will not be held liable if the thing escape and cause damage. - Case: Carstairs v Taylor ( plaintiff rented ground floor from defendants' factory. The water was

TORT Page 1

If the things naturally, and the defendant escape and cause the damage then it will be found liable. Put at least 2 cases that contradict so that it will be clear

The law of strict liability can be defined as a liability which imposed on the defendant without any proof of fault on his part. In other word, although the defendant might have taken all reasonable precautions to avoid or minimize the risks from arising, he may be found liable if the tort falls under the category of strict liability. For instance the rule in Rylands v Fletcher which is a tort of strict liability that has more restricted scope and applicability. In Rylands v Fletcher the defendant who is a mill owner employed independent contractor to build a reservoir. Beneath tis reservoir there were some iron shaft through mining area and connected to the plaintiff's mine. The defendant did not acknowledge this issue and the contractor negligently not blocking and cause the plaintiff's mine to be flooded. The defendant had not been negligent as he had trust with his independent contractor. However he was found liable by the House of Lords and simplifying from what Blackburn J states that 'the person who brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything that is likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his own risk or else he will be answerable for all the damage arising from it'.

Based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, the general principle in determining who can sue is between occupiers in respect of their land. Therefore the plaintiff must have some interest in the land that is affected by the defendant's action. For example in the case of Rylands v Fletchers itself shows that the plaintiff had some interest when his mining area was affected. On the other hand, the person who can be sued must be the occupier who is in control of the land. This indicates that the person must be the party who is responsible for the accumulation of the dangerous thing and has control over it at the time of the escape.

The last element that need to be fulfilled in order for strict liability to be established is there must be a foreseeability of damages from the act of defendant. The defendant will not be held liable for all damage that resulted from the escape. In the case of Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather, the concept of reasonable and foreseeable damage has been highlighted by the court decision. In this case the defendant who is a leather manufacturer used a chemical in the process of manufacturing. During the process the chemical had been spilled little by little on the concrete and seeped through the factory as it is not watersoluble chemical. Then the chemical seeped deeper until it reached the area water supply that the plaintiff used for daily supply to the residents. The distance between the defendant's factory and the plaintiff's borehole was 1.3 miles and took about 9 months for the chemical to seep through. The plaintiff had to spend 1 million in order to find and operate another borehole. The plaintiff claim for negligence, nuisance and strict liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletchers.

Based on this case, the court dismissed the claim of negligence and nuisance as it is not foreseeable that the chemical could seeped and cause damage to the plaintiff. However o strict liability, the court held that the defendant's activity was a non-natural used of land taking into account the public's benefit arose from the activity. Thus the rule in Ryland v Fletchers was inapplicable unless it could be foreseen that the damage would occur as a result from an escape of the chemical. Other than that the defendant also did not take any precautions step to prevent an escape from occurring. The House of Lords affirmed the decision and held that as the defendant use of land is not natural but the damage is not foreseeable, they cannot be held liable. In applying the present situations, the damage suffered by the Orang Kaya due to an escape of the fire is foreseeable. This can be strengthen when Prihatin, shouted and asking why the three person who currently cleaning the stream and se the fire side to it as it could burn the rubber land. Other than that, it reasonably foreseeable for a fire to spread out till the third day as it as a dry season which (mempercepatkan proses untuk api merebak dengan pantas). Thus, this element was fulfilled as the foreseeability of damage is proven.

collected through a gutter that connected through the box and flow it into some pipe then to the drain. Then rats made a hole on the box and cause damages to the plaintiff when the water dripped. Was not found liable as for common benefit eventhough the method of disposing was dangerous). Act of stranger - In Perry v Kendricks Transport, they defined a stranger as a person whose acts the occupier of the land but has no control over it. - Defence will not be applicable if the act comes from the stranger Act of God - In Tennent v Earl of Glasgow they defined it as an event which "no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise" - Eg: natural disaster - Case: Nichols v Marshland (the defendant formed artificial lake on his property. One day an extraordinary storm cam and the water from the lake carried away the plaintiff's bridge. Was not found liable as the object was escaped by the defence of act of god)

Default of the Plaintiff - Case: Dunn v Birmingham Canal Navigation ( a miner who worked his mine under the defendant's canal knowing that the danger and brough water down from the canal upon himself was denied recovery) - His own fault. Statutory of authority

- If the harm is a necessary incident that authorised by the statute, the liability under this rule will not applicable 5. Remedies Damage to the land and property Pure economic loss Personal injuries

Application:

1. In order to establish the strict liability under the rule in Rylands, the Clean Clear Enterprise need to fulfilled some of the elements. The first one is the CCE must brought the thing onto his own lands. Which means he must accumulate it and use it for his own purpose. Based on the situations above, we can see that CCE stores a quantity of toxic industrial cleaning chemical. This indicates that he accumulate and keep it by himself. Next, it states that the toxic chemical was on its land in an industrial estate. This shows the first limb was strengthened and fulfilled which is accumulate and be brought on its land. 2. For his own purpose we can concluded that a cleaning firm need a cleaning chemical in order to clean. Thus it shows that the purpose of the toxic chemical has its own purpose and has a thing to do with the cleaning.

3. The third element is the thing was something likely to do mischief if it escaped. This was taken into account as the toxic fluid is a dangerous thing and it actually cause damage when Suri was badly burned her legs and serious damage on her shoes. It shows that the toxic fluid 'bersifat' acidic and corrosive. 1. Next, when the fluid was spilled it is considered as an escape an it was move from its own maintained place to another place. In applying above situations, a toxic fluid was escaped when the container was overturned and ruptured. Thus, this element also was fulfilled by the action of CCE. (two views from the Puncak Air and Suri) 5. The fifth element is when the defendant made a "non-natural use of his land". In applying the situations, it is a natural use as the premises in the industrial area. It has been set up for the 10 years and not satisfied the special use as it is the common thing. Thus, this element was not fulfilled by the CCE. 6. Lastly, the type of damage must be foreseeable. In applying the above situations, we know that CCE was built on industrial estate that is close to a housing estate. As the escape of the toxic fluid seeps into the underground water supply and contaminated the water, it already cause a damage as the Puncak Air had to find another alternative for the safety of the consumer.

Conclusion:

TORT Page 2

It shows that CCE is a cleaning firm. So it has business of cleaning providing to the premises. Therefore, the CCE would meet the toxic chemical in their business. Likely to cause, what is the dangerous thing that cause the injury Concentrate explain the thing Explain the type of damage Corrosive and acidic Escape from a place where the defendant has a control over the thing, and he kept the thing in a place where he has the control into to a place that has no control Although the toxic fluid spilled and Suri step on it and cause damages to the, the element of escape was not satisfies as the toxic chemical is within the premise where CCE has control....