The Principle of Strict Liability
In tort law, the principle of strict liability holds that a person or entity can be held legally responsible for damages or injuries that they cause, regardless of whether they were negligent or intentional in causing the harm. This means that the plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant was negligent or acted with intent in order to recover damages.
In these situations, the defendant is held strictly liable for any harm that results from their actions or the use of their product, even if they took all reasonable precautions to prevent it. This is because the law recognizes that certain activities or products pose an inherent risk of harm and it is not fair to require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent in order to recover damages.
Strict liability is often contrasted with negligence, which is a more common basis for liability in tort law and requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached this duty, and that the breach caused the plaintiff's injuries.
Rylands v. Fletcher
Rylands v. Fletcher is a famous case in tort law that established the principle of strict liability for certain types of injuries caused by the escape of dangerous substances or activities.
The case involved a mill owner named John Rylands, who hired a contractor to construct a reservoir on his property. The contractor negligently allowed water from the reservoir to escape, which caused damage to a neighbouring property owned by William Fletcher. Fletcher sued Rylands for the damages, arguing that Rylands was liable for the harm caused by the escape of the water from his property.
The court ruled in favour of Fletcher, holding that Rylands was strictly liable for the damages caused by the escape of the water from his property. The court reasoned that Rylands had brought a non-natural use onto his land (the reservoir) and that this use created a risk of harm to neighbouring properties. The court further held that Rylands could not avoid liability by showing that he had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the escape of the water, as strict liability does not require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent.
The case of Rylands v. Fletcher is often cited as an example of the principle of strict liability in tort law and has had a significant impact on the law of damages and liability for the escape of dangerous substances or activities.
