Essentials of Strict Liability

For the application of the Strict Liablity rule there are three essentials that are as follows

1. Some dangerous things must have been brought by a person on his land.
2. The thing thus brought or kept by a person on his land must escape.
3. It must be non-natural use of land.

• Dangerous things - According to this rule the liability for the escape of the things from one's land arises providing the thing collected was the dangerous thing.

The rule has also been applied to gas, electricity, vibrations, yew trees, flag-pole, explosives, noxious fumes and rusty wire.

• Escape - It is also essential that the thing causing damage must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant.

Crowhurst V. A,ersja, Burial Board 1878:  In this case there was a projection of the branches of the poisonous three on the neighbors were poisoned by eating the leaves of the same.  The defendant was held liable.

• Non-natural use of land – Water collected in the reservoir is in such a huge quantity, that it was held to be non-natural use of land. Keeping water of ordinary domestic purposes is natural use.  For the use to be non-natural.  It "must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of community".

Case Law:

Snow Vs. Whitehead 1884:  In this case defendant in erecting a house put down pipes to convey water from the roof but did not connected them with any drain.  The water came through the pipes into the cellar of the house, collected there into a pool and flowed from there into the cellar of the adjoining house of the plaintiff, which was on a lower level.  It was held that plaintiff was entitled to damages in respect of the injuries caused thereby.

Strearn Vs. Prentice Bros. Ltd. 1919:         In this case defendant carting on the business of manufacturing fertilizer or bone manure.  The defendant had collected huge amount of bones on their premises, which cause large numbers of rats to assemble there.  The rats made their way from the defendant's premises on to the plaintiffs land and ate his corm.  Causing substantial loss, in respect of which the plaintiff claimed damages from the defendants.  It was held that no cause of action was established against the defendants.  The court held that defendant not liable because bones were brought by defendant but they were not escaping rats were escaping but they were not brought by defendant and suit was dismissed.