strict liability – the rule in rylands v. fletcher

Strict liability is absolute liability or liability without a fault. Here, liability is strict in cases where the defendant is liable for damage caused by his act whether he is at fault or not. The intention of the defendant whether for good or bad is not put into contemplation in strict liability cases, what matters is whether that action results in damage suffered by another person.

The court laid down the principle that a person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it 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.

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is characterized by the following:

• a. Bringing and keeping a non-natural user on one’s land.
• b. Duty to keep it on one’s land at own peril.
• c. Escape of the thing that causes damage.
• d. Liability for the natural consequences of its escape to another person’s land.

The plaintiff in an action for nuisance must prove the following in order to succeed:

• a. That the defendant brought and kept a non-natural user on his land.
• b. That there was an escape of the non-user.
• c. That damage was done to the plaintiff.

A non-natural user is a thing which is purposely brought to the defendant’s land for purposes of enjoyment, commerce or for any other purpose but was brought by the defendant or a third party, independent contractor with his consent or careless omission.

The following are the differences between nuisance and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher:

• a. In the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, there must exist the accumulation of things which are physical in nature. In nuisance, there is no such requirement.
• b. Liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is confined to the accumulation of objects which can escape and cause damage while nuisance deals with the interference with the right of a person to the enjoyment of his property caused by intangible things.
• c. Under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, there must be an escape of the physical object accumulated by the defendant to the plaintiff’s land. In nuisance, there is no such requirement.
• d. A plaintiff who is not an occupier of the adjoining land may not sue under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, however, under nuisance, such person may sue under private nuisance.
• e. Liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is limited to non- natural user. However, under nuisance, liability is not limited to non-natural user.

The defendant may raise any of the following defenses in a claim under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher:

• a. Act of God.
• b. Act of a stranger.
• c. Fault of the plaintiff.
• d. Consent of the plaintiff.
• e. Statutory authority.
• f. Contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in an action under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher after a successful litigation can recover the following damages:

• a. Damages for physical harm to the land.
• b. Damages for any damage to any structure on the land.