Strict liability - Revision history

Designing Buildings at 07:12, 18 November 2020

2020-11-18T07:12:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, 18 November 2020
Line 35:		Line 35:
	* Trespass.		* Trespass.

−	[[Category:~~Case_law~~]] [[Category:~~DCN_Case_Law~~]] [[Category:Property_law]]	+	[[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:DCN_Definition]] [[Category:DCN_Guidance]] [[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]

Editor at 18:23, 15 March 2019

2019-03-15T18:23:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 15 March 2019
Line 21:		Line 21:
	* Injuries in the workplace (removed in 2013).		* Injuries in the workplace (removed in 2013).

−	~~= Find out more =~~	+	= Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki =
−		+
−	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===	+

	* Contract vs tort.		* Contract vs tort.
	* Defects liability period.		* Defects liability period.
		+	* Delict.
	* Joint and several liability.		* Joint and several liability.
	* Liability.		* Liability.
Line 36:		Line 35:
	* Trespass.		* Trespass.

−	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]	+	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:DCN_Case_Law]] [[Category:Property_law]]

Editor at 15:27, 23 March 2018

2018-03-23T15:27:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:27, 23 March 2018
Line 32:		Line 32:
	* Negligence.		* Negligence.
	* Nuisance.		* Nuisance.
		+	* Quasi-delict.
	* Reasonable skill and care.		* Reasonable skill and care.
	* Trespass.		* Trespass.

	[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]		[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]

Designing Buildings at 15:14, 6 February 2018

2018-02-06T15:14:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 6 February 2018
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Under strict liability, the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove fault, negligence or intention on the part of the defendant, only that there has been damage and/or loss caused to them and the defendant was responsible for it either by their acts or omissions.		Under strict liability, the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove fault, negligence or intention on the part of the defendant, only that there has been damage and/or loss caused to them and the defendant was responsible for it either by their acts or omissions.

−	Strict liability has been applied by common law in situations where there is a potentially dangerous and non-natural object or operation on an owner’s land. It has been held that the ordinary law of negligence may not afford proper protection under these circumstances, and so, the law has created a liability that is 'strict', where a duty of care is not necessary. The intention of this is to dissuade recklessness and unnecessary loss by encouraging defendants to take all precautions possible.	+	Strict liability has, for example, been applied by common law in situations where there is a potentially dangerous and non-natural object or operation on an owner’s land. It has been held that the ordinary law of negligence may not afford proper protection under these circumstances, and so, the law has created a liability that is 'strict', where a duty of care is not necessary. The intention of this is to dissuade recklessness and unnecessary loss by encouraging defendants to take all precautions possible.

	The case of Rylands v Fletcher [1868] first formulated strict liability. It involved a defendant who had built a reservoir on his land. When the reservoir was filled, the water flooded the plaintiff’s neighbouring coal mines. Despite the defendant not being at fault, he was held liable.		The case of Rylands v Fletcher [1868] first formulated strict liability. It involved a defendant who had built a reservoir on his land. When the reservoir was filled, the water flooded the plaintiff’s neighbouring coal mines. Despite the defendant not being at fault, he was held liable.

−	~~This set the precedent for strict~~ liability ~~requiring there to be both a non-natural operation involved and~~ also ~~an ‘escape’ from the plaintiff’s land which causes damage, e.g. flood, pollution, over-spill, and so on.~~	+	Strict liability has also been attributed to:

−	~~In the case~~ of ~~Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003]~~, the ~~principle was~~ applied ~~to a claim based on the failure of a water supply pipe which, without negligence being at play, had damaged Transco’s gas pipeline~~. ~~However, the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the water pipes constituted a ‘routine and ordinary use of~~ the ~~land’~~.	+	* Some aspects of consumer law.
		+	* Contracts and appointment agreements, where the requirement for 'reasonable skill and care' has not been applied throughout.
		+	* Injuries in the workplace (removed in 2013).

−	~~In Australia, the principle of strict liability has been subsumed into the law of negligence, but in England it has not.~~	+	= Find out more =
−		+
−	= ~~<br />~~	+
−	Find out more =	+

	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===		=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===

Designing Buildings at 15:05, 6 February 2018

2018-02-06T15:05:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 6 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds an individual or organisation responsible for damage caused whether they have intent or not. It forms part of the law of tort.		Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds an individual or organisation responsible for damage caused whether they have intent or not. It forms part of the law of tort.

−	Tort is a collection of civil law remedies entitling a person to recover damages for loss and injury which ~~have~~ been caused by the actions, omissions or statements of another person in ~~such~~ circumstances that the latter was in breach of a duty or obligation imposed at law.	+	Tort is a collection of civil law remedies entitling a person to recover damages for loss and injury which has been caused by the actions, omissions or statements of another person in circumstances that the latter was in breach of a duty or obligation imposed by law.

−	In tort, ~~the~~ rights and obligations are created by the courts applying common law, which has, on the basis of previous authority fallen into three distinct categories:	+	In tort, rights and obligations are created by the courts applying common law, which has, on the basis of previous authority fallen into three distinct categories:

	* Negligence.		* Negligence.
Line 11:		Line 11:
	Under strict liability, the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove fault, negligence or intention on the part of the defendant, only that there has been damage and/or loss caused to them and the defendant was responsible for it either by their acts or omissions.		Under strict liability, the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove fault, negligence or intention on the part of the defendant, only that there has been damage and/or loss caused to them and the defendant was responsible for it either by their acts or omissions.

−	Strict liability has been applied by common law in situations where there is a potentially dangerous and non-natural object or operation on an owner’s land. It has been held that the ordinary law of negligence may not afford proper protection and so, the law has ~~set apart certain things for which~~ liability is strict, where a duty of care is not ~~considered~~. ~~As such, the~~ intention ~~has been~~ to dissuade ~~from~~ recklessness and unnecessary loss by encouraging defendants to take all precautions possible.	+	Strict liability has been applied by common law in situations where there is a potentially dangerous and non-natural object or operation on an owner’s land. It has been held that the ordinary law of negligence may not afford proper protection under these circumstances, and so, the law has created a liability that is 'strict', where a duty of care is not necessary. The intention of this is to dissuade recklessness and unnecessary loss by encouraging defendants to take all precautions possible.

−	The case of Rylands v Fletcher [1868] first formulated strict liability. It involved a defendant who had built a reservoir on his land. When the reservoir was filled the water ~~proceeded to flood~~ the plaintiff’s neighbouring coal mines. Despite the defendant not being at fault, he was held liable.	+	The case of Rylands v Fletcher [1868] first formulated strict liability. It involved a defendant who had built a reservoir on his land. When the reservoir was filled, the water flooded the plaintiff’s neighbouring coal mines. Despite the defendant not being at fault, he was held liable.

	This set the precedent for strict liability requiring there to be both a non-natural operation involved and also an ‘escape’ from the plaintiff’s land which causes damage, e.g. flood, pollution, over-spill, and so on.		This set the precedent for strict liability requiring there to be both a non-natural operation involved and also an ‘escape’ from the plaintiff’s land which causes damage, e.g. flood, pollution, over-spill, and so on.

−	~~Whereas in Australia, the principle of strict liability has been subsumed into the law of negligence, in England it has not.~~ In the case of ~~‘Transco~~ v Stockport Metropolitan Borough ~~Council’~~ [2003], the principle was applied to a claim based on the failure of a water supply pipe which, without negligence being at play, had damaged Transco’s gas pipeline. ~~The~~ claim was dismissed on the grounds that the water pipes constituted a ‘routine and ordinary use of the land’.	+	In the case of Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003], the principle was applied to a claim based on the failure of a water supply pipe which, without negligence being at play, had damaged Transco’s gas pipeline. However, the claim was dismissed on the grounds that the water pipes constituted a ‘routine and ordinary use of the land’.

−	= Find out more =	+	In Australia, the principle of strict liability has been subsumed into the law of negligence, but in England it has not.
		+
		+	= <br />
		+	Find out more =

	=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===		=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===

Editor at 15:28, 17 January 2018

2018-01-17T15:28:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:28, 17 January 2018
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Tort is a collection of civil law remedies entitling a person to recover damages for loss and injury which have been caused by the actions, omissions or statements of another person in such circumstances that the latter was in breach of a duty or obligation imposed at law.		Tort is a collection of civil law remedies entitling a person to recover damages for loss and injury which have been caused by the actions, omissions or statements of another person in such circumstances that the latter was in breach of a duty or obligation imposed at law.

−	In ~~[https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Tort~~ tort], the rights and obligations are created by the courts applying common law, which has, on the basis of previous authority fallen into three distinct categories:	+	In tort, the rights and obligations are created by the courts applying common law, which has, on the basis of previous authority fallen into three distinct categories:

	* Negligence.		* Negligence.

Editor: Created page with "Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds an individual or organisation responsible for damage caused whether they have intent or not. It forms part of the law of tort. To..."

2018-01-17T15:27:59Z

Created page with "Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds an individual or organisation responsible for damage caused whether they have intent or not. It forms part of the law of tort. To..."

New page

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that holds an individual or organisation responsible for damage caused whether they have intent or not. It forms part of the law of tort.

Tort is a collection of civil law remedies entitling a person to recover damages for loss and injury which have been caused by the actions, omissions or statements of another person in such circumstances that the latter was in breach of a duty or obligation imposed at law.

In [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Tort tort], the rights and obligations are created by the courts applying common law, which has, on the basis of previous authority fallen into three distinct categories:

* Negligence.
* Nuisance.
* Trespass.

Under strict liability, the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove fault, negligence or intention on the part of the defendant, only that there has been damage and/or loss caused to them and the defendant was responsible for it either by their acts or omissions.

Strict liability has been applied by common law in situations where there is a potentially dangerous and non-natural object or operation on an owner’s land. It has been held that the ordinary law of negligence may not afford proper protection and so, the law has set apart certain things for which liability is strict, where a duty of care is not considered. As such, the intention has been to dissuade from recklessness and unnecessary loss by encouraging defendants to take all precautions possible.

The case of Rylands v Fletcher [1868] first formulated strict liability. It involved a defendant who had built a reservoir on his land. When the reservoir was filled the water proceeded to flood the plaintiff’s neighbouring coal mines. Despite the defendant not being at fault, he was held liable.

This set the precedent for strict liability requiring there to be both a non-natural operation involved and also an ‘escape’ from the plaintiff’s land which causes damage, e.g. flood, pollution, over-spill, and so on.

Whereas in Australia, the principle of strict liability has been subsumed into the law of negligence, in England it has not. In the case of ‘Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council’ [2003], the principle was applied to a claim based on the failure of a water supply pipe which, without negligence being at play, had damaged Transco’s gas pipeline. The claim was dismissed on the grounds that the water pipes constituted a ‘routine and ordinary use of the land’.

= Find out more =

=== Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki ===

* Contract vs tort.
* Defects liability period.
* Joint and several liability.
* Liability.
* Liability for building design.
* Negligence.
* Nuisance.
* Reasonable skill and care.
* Trespass.

[[Category:Case_law]] [[Category:Property_law]]