Strict Liability CASES
In English civil law, strict liability imposes liability without proving negligence or intent. It arises in defined regimes (notably defective products, dangerous things escaping, and certain animal cases). “Strict” is not “absolute”: causation, damage, and defences still matter.
Definition and principles
Strict liability attaches when statutory or common-law conditions are met.
Key contexts include:
(i) product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 – no-fault liability for damage caused by a defective product (safety below what persons are generally entitled to expect);
(ii) dangerous escapes under Rylands v Fletcher – accumulation of a dangerous thing, non-natural use, escape, and foreseeable damage; and
(iii) animals under the Animals Act 1971 – dangerous species (and, in defined circumstances, non-dangerous species).
Common examples
- Injury or property damage caused by a defective consumer or industrial product (CPA 1987).
- Flooding, fire, chemicals, or stored energy escaping from land (Rylands v Fletcher category).
- Injury caused by animals where statutory conditions for strict liability are met.
Legal implications
- No need to prove breach of a duty of care, but the claimant must establish defect/escape/statutory conditions, damage, and causation.
- Defences vary by regime: for CPA, examples include development risks (“state of the art”), compliance with mandatory requirements, no defect at supply, or non-supply; for Rylands, act of God, act of a stranger, consent, default of the claimant, and statutory authority.
- Contributory negligence can reduce damages. Multiple defendants may seek contribution between themselves.
- Limitation rules apply; product claims include a longstop from when the product entered circulation.
Practical importance
Early case assessment should pin down the applicable regime, prove the triggering conditions (defect/escape/species), and preserve technical and expert evidence (design, warnings, maintenance, site conditions). Policy wording and notifications matter where insurance responds.
See also: Product liability; Consumer Protection Act 1987; Rylands v Fletcher; Animals Act 1971; Negligence; Nuisance; Causation; Defences; Contribution.
Home » Strict Liability
A council water pipe burst, damaging Transco's gas main. Transco sued under the strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The House of Lords held the council was not liable, as supplying water through ordinary pipes was a natural, not a non-natural, use of land. Facts The respondent, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, owned a 22-storey block of flats. They were responsible for a large high-pressure pipe which supplied water from the mains to storage tanks in the building. A fracture occurred in this pipe, which was located in the basement of the flats. The leak was not detected for a
A fire caused by faulty wiring at a tyre-fitting business spread to an adjoining property. The defendant was not held strictly liable under Rylands v Fletcher because the items brought onto the land (tyres) did not themselves escape, only the fire did. Facts The defendant, Mr Stannard, operated a tyre-fitting business, Wyvern Tyres, from a unit on a trading estate. In February 2008, a fire, which likely originated from an electrical fault in the wiring, ignited a large collection of tyres stored on the premises. The blaze became incredibly intense due to the approximately 3,000 tyres acting as fuel, and
A mill owner's reservoir, built over disused mine shafts, flooded a neighbour's working mine. Despite not being negligent, the owner was held liable. This landmark case established the rule of strict liability for the escape of dangerous things from one's land. Facts The defendant, John Rylands, a mill owner, employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on his land to supply water to his mill. During construction, the contractors discovered old, disused coal mining shafts beneath the site, which were not properly sealed. These shafts unknowingly connected to the operational mine of the claimant, Thomas Fletcher. When the reservoir was
An inspector in a munitions factory was injured by an explosion. She could not prove negligence. The House of Lords held the factory was not liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as there was no 'escape' of the dangerous thing from the premises. Facts The appellant, Miss Eleanor Read, was an inspector for the Ministry of Supply during the Second World War. She was directed to work at the respondent’s munitions factory, which was operated on behalf of the Ministry. On 31st August 1942, an explosion occurred during the process of manufacturing a high-explosive shell, killing one person
A prisoner was detained for 59 days beyond her lawful release date because the prison governor miscalculated her sentence based on a legal interpretation that was later overruled. The House of Lords held this was false imprisonment, a tort of strict liability. Facts The appellant, Michelle Evans, was serving consecutive prison sentences. The prison governor’s staff calculated her release date in accordance with the prevailing interpretation of the relevant sentencing provisions, as established in R v. Governor of Blundeston Prison, Ex parte Gaffney [1982] 1 W.L.R. 696. However, a subsequent High Court decision, R v. Secretary of State for the
A horse, startled by an unknown cause, bolted from its field onto a road and collided with the claimant's car, causing injury. The House of Lords held the keepers strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971, establishing a wide interpretation of liability. Facts The appellants, Mr and Mrs Henley, were keepers of several horses in a field adjacent to a main road. The field was secured by fencing and an electric fence. For an unknown reason, one of the horses, described as normally quiet and placid, was startled. Along with two other horses, it panicked, broke through the fencing, and
A tannery's historical, gradual chemical spills contaminated a water company's borehole. The House of Lords held the defendant was not liable, finding the environmental damage was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence, thereby establishing foreseeability of harm as an essential element for liability in nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher. Facts The respondent, Eastern Counties Leather plc (ECL), operated a leather tannery in Sawston, Cambridgeshire. In their tanning process, they used a chemical solvent, Perchloroethene (PCE). Over many years, small quantities of PCE were spilt onto the concrete floor of their facility. These spillages seeped through the floor and into the chalk
Claimants infected with Hepatitis C from blood products sued the National Blood Authority. The court held that under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the blood was 'defective' because the public is entitled to expect it to be safe, regardless of whether the contamination was avoidable at the time. Facts This was a group action brought by 114 claimants who had been infected with the Hepatitis C virus (HCV) as a result of receiving contaminated blood or blood products. The blood was supplied by the National Blood Service, for which the defendant, the National Blood Authority, was responsible. At the time
A dairy supplied milk contaminated with typhoid germs, causing the customer's wife's death. The court held the dairy company liable for breaching the implied warranty under the Sale of Goods Act 1893, confirming that the milk must be fit for consumption. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Frost, purchased milk daily from the defendants, The Aylesbury Dairy Company, for his family’s consumption. A pass-book was kept which contained a statement of the precautions taken by the defendants to ensure the purity of their milk. The plaintiff’s wife contracted typhoid fever from consuming the milk, which was found to be contaminated with typhoid
