strict liability

 Strict liability 

Ryland v. Fletcher case (1987)

In the case of Ryland v. fletcher in this defendant fletcher build a reservoir under the ground by an independent contractor, while construction the contractor  realised that there was an old mill nearby have their own mineshafts, but they ignored it completely, because after few days the reservoir water went to mineshafts and damages the whole goods (mines) of the plaintiff, in this case the defendant claim that he didn’t known that their was mine shaft also the reservoir was build by the independent contractor so all these have happen due to the contractor no by him, but court didn’t listen to the defendant and he had to pay off the damages to the plaintiff. The defendant has pay off the compensation amount as it comes under the strict liability so the person is liable of causing damage to another person. 

The meaning has been defined by the Blackburn (judge in the case) who said that people thinks that the rule of law has been defined that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for the damages incurred to another person in anyhow. But over here the person could make some excuses himself by showing that the escape was owning to the plaintiff’s default or perhaps that the escape was by the happening of the act of God like by earthquake, flood, more. These defences have been provided but as nothing of this sort exist here, there are many excuses could be given other than this it has to most prominent one then only it will have accepted. 

There some general defences or exceptions are:

• Violent non fit injuria (consent)

• Plaintiff is wrong doer 

• Inevitable Accident 

• Vis’s major i.e., Act of God 

• Private Defence

• Mistake 

• Necessity

• Statutory authority 

But in strict liability there are some point not allowed (inevitable accident, private defences, mistake, necessity), also it includes one more defence act of third party. In the above case law, the independent contractor cannot be included as a third party as he has conducted the mistake also only the person who is not related to the case will be considered as third party. 

1. These comes under the 

2. Dangerous things 

Escape (in case of Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board) in this case a poisonous tress which had grown went escape to other person land and the cattle had eaten that and died so the plaintiff asks for compensation amount from defendant and so court order since it was dangerous also had escape to other person land which has caused damage to him so it’s a strict liability and the damage was given to the plaintiff.

If it happens that the thing was dangerous and it doesn’t escape also (in case Ponting v. Noakes) plaintiff horse had eaten the poisonous plant and died so over here the plant was dangerous but it didn’t escape at all so it doesn’t come under the strict liability 

3. Non natural use of land 

In the case of Sochacki v. Sas in this the gas was lick and there was fire all-around which was dangerous as well as it had escaped totally, but over her the two exception was there but it was not non-natural use of land, therefore the court does not apply the strict liability.