Bibliography

Strict Liability In law of torts in India (defactolaw.in)

RULES IN RYLANDS V. FLETCHER - E-Justice India (ejusticeindia.com)

The strict principle of law is: sics utere tuo ut alienum non laedas; it means,
everyone must so use his own as not to do damage to another. When this maxim is
applied to landed property, it is necessary for the plaintiff to show not only that he
has sustained damage but also that the defendant has caused it by going beyond
what is necessary in order to enable him to have the natural use of his own land.

Strict liability means liability of a person for the wrong he does. It means he is
liable for any fault of his own; for any care or precaution that he is expected to take
but has not taken. There may be many instances when strict liability will arise and
also make him absolutely liable for all the consequences.

Rylands v Fletcher (1868, p.330) — the water reservoir case: Fletcher was
working in a coal mine under a lease. On the neighboring land, Rylands desired to
erect a reservoir for storing water, and for this purpose, he employed a competent
independent contractor whose workmen, while excavating the soil, discovered
some disused shafts and passages communicating with old workings and the mine
in the adjoining land. The shafts and passages had been filled with loose earth and
rubbish.

The contractor did not take the trouble to pack these shafts and passages with earth,
so as to bear pressure of water in the reservoir, when it is filled. Shortly after the
construction of the reservoir, whilst it was partly filled with water, the vertical
shafts gave way and burst downwards. The consequence was that the water flooded
the old passages and also the plaintiff’s mine, so that the mine could not be worked.
The plaintiff sued for damages.
No negligence on the part of the defendant was proved. The only question was
whether the defendant would be liable for the negligence of the independent
contractor who was admittedly a competent engineer. The Court held that the
question of negligence was quite immaterial. The defendant, in bringing water into
the reservoir, was bound to keep it there at his peril, and was, therefore, liable.

In this case, it was ruled as follows: A person who, for his own purpose, brings on
his land and collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes,
must keep it in and at his peril; and if he does so, he is prima facie answerable for
all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. This is known as the
rule in Rylands v Fletcher (also known as “the wild beast theory”).

Indian Law: It has been held in several cases that the principle of Rylands v
Fletcher applies in India.

Essential Ingredients of Strict Liability

The essential ingredients of strict liability include the following.

1. There should be dangerous thing.

According to this rule, the liability for the escape of a thing from one’s land arises
from collecting of a dangerous things. In Ryland’s v. Fletcher, the thing so
collected was a large body of water. The rule has also been applied to various
dangerous thing. Such as, Gas, electricity, noxious fumes.

2. There should be escape of dangerous thing and there should be some

In the rule Ryland’s v. Fletcher, it is also essential that the thing causing the
damage must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the
defendant. Thus, there is an illustration for this essential.ie. If there is a projection
of the branches of a poisonous tree on the neighbors land, this amount to an escape
and if the cattle lawfully there on the neighbors land are poisoned by eating the
leaves of the same, the defendant will be liable under the rule. But, if cattle
trespasses the land of plaintiff and dies by eating the poisonous leaves, then the
defendant cannot be liable because there is no escape

3. There should be a non-natural use of the land or property.

In Ryland’s v. Fletcher, the water collected in a reservoir in such a huge quantity

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

The following are five important exceptions to the principle/rule laid down
in Rylands v Fletcher’s case.
 1. Vis Major or act of God: An act of God (vis major) is
defined to be such a direct, violent, sudden and irresistible act of
nature, as could not, by any amount of ability, have been foreseen,
or if foreseen, could not, by any amount of human care and skill,
have been resisted. Act of god/Vis major are also considered to be
as a defense to an action under the rule in Ryland’s v. Fletcher.
“Act of god can be defined as: – “A Circumstances which arrive
suddenly without any prediction to humans. And it cannot be
controlled by any human being”. Like natural disasters. If the
escape has been unplanned because of supernatural forces without
any human interruption, the defense of Act of god can be pleaded.
In the case, Nicholas v. Mars land it is clearly stated. An “Act of
god” as an exception to the rule of strict liability will not be held to
the death due to electric shock as a result of falling of electric post
from its pole due to lightning.
2. Wrongful or malicious act of a stranger: The rule is also not
applicable where the damage is due to the wrongful or malicious
act of a stranger. If, however, the act of the stranger is such that it
ought to have been anticipated and guarded against, the defendant
will be liable for failure to take reasonable care.
3. Plaintiff’s own fault: The rule also does not apply where the
escape is due to the plaintiff’s own fault. In Ryland’s v. Fletcher
case, it has been stated that when the damage is caused by escape
due to the plaintiff’s own default will be considered to be as good
defense. But, if the plaintiff suffers damage by trespassing into the
defendant’s property, the plaintiff cannot claim compensation for
the damage so caused. Because it is clearly stated in the
case, Ponting v. Noakes. Here, the plaintiffs goat trespassed into
 the defendants land and died after nibbling the leaves of a
poisonous tree there. So, the defendant was not liable because
damage would not have happened if the plaintiff’s goat trespassed
into any other land. It was goat’s own decision. The Rule in
Ryland’s v. Fletcher did not apply to the case for another reason
also, i.e., that there was no escape. When the damage is caused by
the ‘escape’ of defendant things as by the unusual sensitiveness of
the plaintiff’s property, cannot be claim compensation. And it is
clearly stated in the case, Eastern & South African
Telegraph.Co.Ltd v. Cape Town Tramways Co. It was observed
that, “A man cannot increase the liabilities of his neighbor by
applying his own property to special uses, whether for business or
pleasure.
4. Common benefit: The rule does not apply where the escape is due
to artificial works maintained With the plaintiff’s consent and for
the common benefit of the plaintiff and the defendant,
5. Statutory authority: The last exception to the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher is where the defendant is empowered or authorized or
required under the law or a statue to accumulate, keep or collect
the dangerous thing, which escapes and causes mischief and injury
to the plaintiff, persons empowered by statute to bring or keep
upon their land, a dangerous substance are not liable in the absence
of negligence or an express provision in the statute to the contrary
for the damage caused by its escape.

Statutory authority is, however, of two kinds: i) absolute and ii)