Rylands V Fletcher Case Analysis

1038 Words5 Pages

Introduction
Definition of tort of strict liability and Rylands v Fletcher
Under both Malaysian Law and English Law, even though tort law is predominantly a fault-based tort, there are still exceptions. For example, the tort of strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher originated from the tort of nuisance which then developed to become quite distinct from the tort of nuisance while strict liability is a term used to impose liability on defendant without the fault to his part.
Elements of liability under rule of Rylands v Fletcher
Per Blackburn J in Court of Exchequer Chamber, ‘the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands… likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its …show more content…

Consent of plaintiff
This defence operates as similar as the volenti. In Carstairs v Taylor, there was no liability in Rylands case when a rat gnawed through the container and caused flooding as the collection and storage had been for the benefit of all inhabitants. In accordance to Colour Quest v Total Downstream UK Ltd, the court held that consent will not operates in cases where the defendant has been negligent.
Act of third party
By applying Rylands, a tort caused by a third party who has no control under the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not liable. This defence operated in Perry v Kendricks, where a child trespasser threw a lighted match into a petrol tank causing which explosion.
Act of God
This defence will only be used for an exceptional event, such as earthquake. As reviewing to case Nichols v Marsland, a very heavy rainstorm qualified for this defence. However, this defence would probably not to be accepted

Open Document