R V F Principle

1. Rule in Rylands v Flecther * Rylands v Flecther Facts | * P sued D, the mill owner, for the flooding caused by the escape of water from reservoir on D's land. * Noted that the escape is caused by the negligence of the independent contractor, hired by D. * However, R v F is a strict liability and the negligence of the third party does not exonerate D's liability. | Held | * Court was of the opinion that obligation on the person who lawfully brings on his land something which can naturally do mischief if it escapes then D should be liable * This case has laid down the general guideline as to when R v F rule applies:Who can sue?: Owner or occupier of the land Conditions? : * Owner brings the dangerous material onto the land himself * The object is likely to do mischief (hence it is foreseeable for the owner) * Dangerous material escapes * And subsequently causes damages * Given that there is an escape, D will be liable for all the consequence and reasonable care becomes irrelevant. | Ratio | * “R v F rule applies where an owner or occupier of the land for his own purpose brings on his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his own peril, and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape”- Per Blackburn J. |

2. Collection and keeping * Substances have to be brought onto land by the defendant which is likely to do mischief. * Liability cannot be established if something that occurs naturally on the land escapes and causes harm. * It maybe the substances that are collected and kept on the land cause something else to escape. * Lee Hing Warehouse Limited v Su Chi Keung Coman (1994) Facts | * P sued D for damages to P's goods caused by the water escaped from a tank which was part of the D's dyeing and bleaching factory. | Held | * The court held that since the water from the tank is