Strict Liability Table

March 19, 2018 | Author: Chin Kuen Yei | Category: Strict Liability, Negligence, Tort, Civil Law (Legal System), Society


Comments



Description

Strict liabilityDefinition: - a term used to describe liability which is imposed on D without any proof of fault on his part. So although the defendant might have taken all reasonable precautions to avoid or minimize risks arising from his activity, he may still be found liable if the tort which has arisen falls under the category of trict liability torts. - Intention Irrelevant: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher The Defendants themselves were not negligent and neither were they vicariously liable for the negligence of their independent contractors, but the HOL held them liable to the P Elements Dangerous things/ Thing likely to cause damage if it escapes Principle Case What is dangerous is Ang Hock Tai v a question of fact. Tan Sum Lee & (not Anor a reasonable man’s test) The rule applies that to anything may cause damage if it escapes. Once this element is fulfilled, than the thing is a “dangerous thing”. Intentional storage / Accumulation This rule on applies to an object or thing which the D purposely keeps and collects. D will only be liable if he has accumulated thing. himself Even has accumulated the if he not the Held D liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as the petrol was a dangerous thing will not be held liable RDC for Gwyn D was not liable as he did not accumulate the rocks. The liability rests in those who have control over the thing. Moreover the escape was not caused by the D’s act. In cases like this. An occupier of land who intentionally .thing. if he has not accumulated the it escape independent and was of the D’s conduct. growth of the D’s land despite the fact that the thistles grew on his land due to his leaving unattended after he had ploughed it. he may still be liable if he has authorised the accumulation. Miles v Forest The accumulation An occupier of land damage caused Pontardawe v Moore- by the escape of a thing naturally on the land. Rule is not applicable Giles v Walker The thistles were to anything that is the natural naturally on the land. liability may be sought under the tort nuisance of or negligence. to The they if escaped would be likely to cause damage and therefore. Rock Granite of explosives that Co gave rise (Leicestershire) liability. Escape Escape means the thing has escaped from a place over which the D has no control and authority to a place over which the D has no control and authority. Ltd: explosives.causes something that is naturally found on his land to escape may still be held liable for any consequent damage that is caused to the P. There was escape use as of the the explosives caused the rocks to fall away from the D’s land and the damage was caused to the P. there escape tress leaves extend the was no as the and its did not beyond defendant’s boundary and so the P failed in his . They were deliberately collected and stored by the D. were dangerous things. Weng Lok Mining Co Ltd v Hiap Lee Brickmakers Ltd: Pointing Noakes v court held that escape must be proven before the principle in Rylands v Fletcher is applicable. The satisfied must following there in hot and conditions as laid dry weather. the fire would be likely to spread to Liability is imposed the P’s land for the spread of fire if the spread was due b) to the default of the these D’s servant. ignite. or that the Tanah from the D Persekutuan combustible cut negligence have the of caused either commencement the has fire or caused its or of to permitted to exist on TNB. The down D in Lembaga known that fires spreading to the P’s Kemajuan could break out premises. a have the v Firstly. The D material injury to the likely to catch fire use of the land P’s and property. there onto land the P’s kept them was found to be in such a condition that if they to did non-natural use. Damage caused by In circumstances The court found the spread of fire where there is no for the P as the P is still required to escape burning prove either the D anything brought vegetation on the himself or a person onto the D’s land. his guest the and some non-natural even his independent The D did things in course of use of land. and contractor. D had agents and should the had left have vegetation and would spread source of fire danger brought which constituted a their land things property. presumption like No in common law. c) Liability will be excluded where the The things had ignited and the fire has If a person makes . D’s for whose conduct he the D must be been cut by the was answerable has proved D’s employees or been negligent.action. a) his the premises. in order to burn act of nature or the something which act of a stranger or Lee Kee v Gui is trespasses See & Anor he over inflammable. must take whom the defendant reasonable steps has no control. Non-natural Meaning: (Rickards v use of land Lothian [1913] AC 263 at 280 PC) “It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.fire spread or occurred due to an spread to the P’s a fire on his land land. to Knowledge of the prevent the fire from spreading. This fire .” Read v Lyons All factors such as time. albeit started by duty is absolute a party over whom and the D has no control delegable. imposes a duty on him to extinguish it within a reasonable time. location and the ordinary activities of mankind must be non- . so that what is dangerous or constitutes a non- natural use of land may differ in different circumstances. Factors to be taken Mason into Auto account: the quantity of thing.taken into consideration. The court will balance the prob ability of damage occurring plus the seriousness of the probable damage compared to the social benefit derived from it. this decision may be justified basis on the that an ‘escape’ of the tree had occurred as the branches and leaves had encroached onto . which the way it stored and the in was v Levy Parts of England Ltd [1967] 2 QB 530 also the location of D’s land: Crowhurst v D liable as t Amersham planting a Burial poisonous tree is Board [1878] 4 not a natural use Ex D 5 of land. the P’s land. use . Yat Yuen Hong Piling loose earth Co v on a steep slope & so that more flat Ltd Sheridanlea Anor land would be available was a non-natural of land.
Copyright © 2024 DOKUMEN.SITE Inc.