The Tort of Strict Liability: A Timeless Principle
The tort of strict liability is a common law principle that has stood the test of time. Even though it is a recent invention in the past century, invented for situations where a person may want to deploy the concept of plausible deniability, this principle now holds individuals responsible for harm caused by dangerous substances or animals on their premises, regardless of fault.
In essence, if you keep something hazardous on your property, you’re liable for any injuries it causes to your neighbors or the larger community. The hazards in issue do not have to be as pronounced as having the isotope -235 of Uranium used to make nuclear weapons, that escaped and made places like Chernobyl or Fukushima presently inhospitable for the next 10,000 years because they escaped from the reactors that held them. It can be merely a tap of running water, open on the upper floor of a building, that flooded the lower floors of a building and probably destroyed property.
Key Aspects of Strict Liability Torts.
Strict liability applies to animals, substances, or structures that can escape and cause harm. The owner or keeper of the hazardous item is responsible for any injuries it causes, even if they’re not directly at fault. This principle holds, regardless of whether the escape is due to the owner’s actions or not.
Landmark Case: Rylands v. Fletcher
The principle of strict liability in tort was famously established in the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher. In this case, a reservoir built on the defendant’s land flooded the plaintiff’s mine due to the careless omission of independent contractors. The court held the defendant strictly liable for the damage, setting a powerful precedent that has reverberated since the subsequent decades.
PER BLACKBURN J.
“The rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his own peril, and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.’’
Remedy for Victims
If you’re harmed by a substance or animal that escapes from someone’s property, you can bring a claim against them. If you prove that the hazardous item caused harm, the court will provide a remedy in your favour. This principle ensures that those responsible for hazardous substances or structures take accountability for any harm caused.
Strict Liability: Liability for Animals
The principle of strict liability, as established in Rylands v. Fletcher, extends to animals, making owners responsible for harm caused by their animals, regardless of whether the animal is considered dangerous or not. This means that if an animal attacks or causes injury to someone, the owner can be held liable.
However, this principle is not absolute, and defendants have the opportunity to prove that they should not be held liable if the harm caused was not directly due to their actions or negligence. The courts have recognised certain defenses, including:
– Act of God
– Plaintiff’s default
– Volenti non fit injuria (consent to risk)
Animal Liability under Strict Liability torts is divided into two main categories:
- Scienter Action Rule (Liability for Dangerous Animals):
- Cattle Trespass
Scienter Action (Liability for Dangerous Animals)
This branch of strict liability focuses on dangerous animals, where liability hinges on the owner’s prior knowledge of the animal’s conduct. However, this can be challenging for the plaintiff, as they must demonstrate that the defendant knew of the animal’s vicious tendencies. This is only possible if the plaintiff has evidence of previous incidents or if the animal’s behavior was directly observed by the plaintiff.
The Scienter Action Rule categorises dangerous animals into two groups:
- Animals Ferae Naturae (Wild Animals)
These animals are inherently dangerous, such as lions, tigers, elephants, and hyenas. Their wild nature make them a risk to humans, and owners are strictly liable for any harm caused, regardless of:
– Prior knowledge of the animal’s behaviour
– Whether the animal was tamed or not
In Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus (1957), the owner of an elephant was held liable for the elephant’s actions, despite having no prior knowledge of any aggressive behaviour of the Elephant.
- Animals Mansuetae Naturae (Tamed Animals)
These animals are normally domesticated but may occasionally attack humans, such as dogs. Liability arises only if the owner knew of the animal’s vicious tendencies. To establish liability, the plaintiff must prove:
– The animal had a vicious tendency
– The owner was aware of this tendency
In summary, owners of wild animals are strictly liable for any harm caused, while owners of domesticated (or tamed) animals are liable only if they knew or should have known of the animal’s dangerous behaviour.
UNDER CATTLE TRESPASS
Cattle Liability under Rylands v. Fletcher: Owners of cattle that stray on to another’s property are strictly liable for any damage caused, regardless of fault or negligence. This includes damage to crops, property, or injury to people. The owners are held responsible for containing their cattle and preventing escape, and will be held liable if they fail to do so. This can effectively work to curtail the incessant encroachment of farms by errant herders but the fact that they are nomadic and can’t be identified with a known address or property that can be used to offset damages caused makes it a unique problem for getting redress.
Lead Partner EKO SOLICITORS AND ADVOCATES
Counsel EKO SOLICITORS AND ADVOCATES