Group 9

Mohd Afif Bin Mohd Kharuddin 2010361693 Nur Izzaty Zayani Binti Mat Ziat 2010132155 Farhana Aqlilie Binti Noor Azmi 2010189471

Question
Taman Mayang is a newly developed middle class residential area on the outskirts of Shah Alam. To the north of Taman Mayang is located a quarry which has been on operation since 1960. The quarry uses explosives for its rock blasting operations. Vibration from its rock blasting operation can be felt daily by the residents of Taman Mayang.

 Sometimes as a result of the blasting, small pieces of rocks are strewn on the road leading to Taman Mayang. Last week, Kala, a resident of Taman Mayang, was driving home when a small piece of rock from the quarry hit his car and broke the windscreen. Advice Kala and the residents of Taman Mayang if any action can be taken against the quarry operator.

Issue
Whether Kala and the residents of Taman Mayang can take legal action against the quarry operator under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.

Law
Case: Rylands v. Fletcher
Defendants mill owner employed some independent contractors to build a reservoir. Beneath the reservoir were some iron shafts that went through a mining area and which were connected to the plaintiff mine. The defendant did not know of the existence of these shafts and the contractors were negligent in not blocking the shafts. The plaintiff mine were flooded when the reservoir was fill with water. The defendants themselves were not negligent and neither were they vicariously liable for the negligence of their independent contractors, but the House of Lords held them liable to the plaintiff.

 Blackburn J in the Court of Exchequer Chamber said:

We think that the true 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 peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. This statement is known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Elements to establish liability

There are 6 elements required to establish liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Likely to do mischief Intentional storage and accumulation Defendants own purpose Escape Non-natural use of land Foreseeability of damage

1st Element: Intentional storage and accumulation

The rule only applies to an object or thing which the defendant purposely keeps and collects. The storing of the things must be for the defendants own purposes. The principle is not applicable where the thing is brought on to the defendants land by or for the use of another person.

Case: Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire)

Facts: The defendant used some explosives to blast some rocks on his land. Some of the rocks fell onto the land below and injured the plaintiff.

 Held: The court found that although the rocks were not purposely collected and kept. The defendant was held liable for this deliberate accumulation which caused the escape of the rocks, and also because the way in which the injury was sustained, through rock-blasting, which was held to be a non-natural use of land.

Application:
By applying it into this situation, the facts of the case are almost similar as, it was the accumulation of explosives that gave rise to liability. The explosives, if they escape would be likely to cause damage and therefore, were dangerous things. They were deliberately collected and stored by the defendant.

 Thus the act of the quarry of storing and accumulating explosive constitute as fulfilling the element of intentional storage and accumulation. There was an escape as the use of the explosives caused the rocks to fall away from the defendants land, and damage was caused to the plaintiff.

 It did not matter that the final damage was in fact caused by another thing (the rocks, in this case). In can be safely be said that Kala and the resident of Taman Mayang has fulfill the 1st element.

2nd Element: For his own purpose

The storing of the thing must be on his own purpose and not for the use of another person. So if a licensee accumulates the thing on the land, and the things escapes and causes damage, the licensee will be held liable.

 The landowner would only be liable if the licensee accumulates the thing with the authorization of the owner, or if the accumulation was done in pursuance of a contractual duty owed by the owner to a third party.

Case: Rainham Chemical Works v. Belvedere Fish Guano

X and Y set up a company Z Ltd, operating as a factory. The function of Z Ltd was to perform a contract entered into by both X and Y, with another party, to manufacture explosives. Z Ltd was to manufacture the explosives on X and Ys land. So Z Ltd was a licensee. A catastrophic explosion occurred, which damaged neighboring property and robbed many lives.

 The House of Lords found Z Ltd liable as the licensee which had accumulated the thing. X and Y, as occupiers and landowners were also liable for the escape of the thing accumulated by their licensee as the accumulation was a discharge of X and Ys contractual duty to another party.

Application
By applying into this situation, the act of the defendant of accumulating the dangerous explosive for their own private use and for the use in their rock blasting business thus satisfy the element of for the defendant own purpose. By the act of the defendant accumulating the explosives, any leakage or escape or damage or injury caused by the said explosive while using them are strictly under the defendant's fault.

 If what escapes is not the dangerous thing but the by-product of it (in this case rocks) as from the use of the explosives, the occupier of land will be found liable under the rule of Rylands .v Fletcher. Thus, the element of for the defendants own purpose are fulfill.

3rd Element: Likely to do mischief

Must exist a dangerous thing and the word dangerous has its own meaning under this tort. What is dangerous is the question of fact.
The rule applies to anything that may cause damage if it escapes. The object or thing need not be dangerous per se because there are objects which are safe if properly kept but are dangerous when they escape.

 Eg : noxious fumes, explosive , fire , electricity , water and sewage

Case : Ang Hock Tai v. Tan Sum Lee & Anor.

Fact: The Pf rented a shophouse and lived on the 1st floor of the building. The ground floor was sublet to the Df, who was in the business of repairing and distributing tyres. Df stored petrol for the purposes of his business. One morning Dfs premises caught fire. The fire spread to the first floor and the Pfs wife and child died in the tragedy.

Held : Df was liable under the rule In Rylands v. Fletcher as the petrol was a dangerous thing.

APPLICATION
Applying into this situation, the dangerous thing in this situation was the explosive used in the rock blasting operation in the quarry. The explosive themselves were not dangerous per se if properly kept but become dangerous when they are used in the rock blasting operation which causes the small rocks to escape from the quarry site.

 As in the situation, the rock blasting activity causes small fragment of rocks from the quarry to be blown away and hit Kalas car and broke the windscreen of his car and also causing small pieces of rocks strewn on the road leading to Taman Mayang.

 Therefore, the explosion during the rock blasting activity accidently blown away small rocks and had caused damage to Kalas car windscreen. For the residents of Taman Mayang, the small pieces of rocks strewn on the road leading to Taman Mayang have a possibilities to cause damage or injury to the residents.

 Thus, the third element was established by both Kala and the residents of Taman Mayang.

4th Elements: Escape

The Pf must prove that there has been an escape. An escape means the thing has escaped from a place over which the Defendant has control and authority to a place over which the Defendant has no control and authority.

 The meaning of escape has been extended to include a situation where the use of the dangerous thing causes or creates an event from which damage is sustained.

Case : Midwood & Co. Ltd v. Mayor, Aldermen & Citizens of Manchester The Defendant were held liable when an explosion on their property caused inflammable gas to escape into the Plantiff house and consequently set fire to the Plantiff property.

APPLICATION
By applying the above case in the situation, Kala and the residents of Taman Mayang can prove that there was an escape of the small pieces of rocks from the place which the quarry has control and authority (which was within the quarry site) to a place which the quarry has no control or authority as in this situation on the road leading to Taman Mayang and towards Kalas car causing the windscreen to broke.

 Therefore, both Kala and the residents of Taman Mayang had fulfilled the 4th element as there was an escape of the small rocks onto the road and hitting Kalas car windscreen which was in the area not in the control of the quarry operator boundaries.

5th Element : Non-Natural Use of Land

To fulfill this element, a plaintiff need to prove that the defendant makes a non-natural use of the land. Per Lord Moulton in the case of Rickards v Lothian :
It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.

 Lord Porter in the case of Read v Lyons & Co Ltd said :

all factors such as time, location and the ordinary activities of mankind must be taken into consideration, so that what is dangerous or constitutes a non-natural use of land may differ in different circumstances.

No conclusive test to know what constitutes a non-natural use of land.

Case : Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd

The defendant used some explosives to blast some rocks on his land. Some of the rocks fell onto the land below and injured the plaintiff. The defendant was held liable for the deliberate accumulation which caused the escape of the rocks, and because the way in which the injury was sustained through rock-blasting, which was not a natural use of land. In this case, the court did hold that the use of explosives on private land constituted a nonnatural use of land.

Application
5th element : According to the case of Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co, the quarry operation is considered as a non-natural use of land as it have been carried out on a residential land. Although the quarry has been on operation since 1960, as the area had been developed as a middle class residential area, the operation of a quarry which was rock blasting is not a natural use of land.

 That area usage of land is for citizens to reside and not suitable for quarry operation anymore. The usage of explosives for rock blasting operation on residential area constituted a non-natural use of land.

 Thus the 5th element of non-natural use of land is fulfill for both Kala and the resident of Taman Mayang.

6th Element : Foreseeability of Damage

For liability to arise under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, the type of damage must be foreseeable. Foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite to liability. If a defendants use of their land was not exactly a natural use of land but because the damage was not foreseeable, he cannot be held liable.

Case : Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc

The defendant who was a leather manufacturer used a chemical, PCE, in the process of manufacturing. The chemical had been spilled little by little on the concrete floor of their factory. PCE was not soluble in water and it had seeped through the factory floor until fifty metres below the ground. It had then spread at the rate of eight metres per day until it reached the area the plaintiff used to pump water for daily consumption of the residents in that area. The distance between the defendants factory and the plaintiffs borehole was 1.3 miles and it had taken nine months for the PCE spillage to reach the borehole.

 The court held that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher was inapplicable unless it could be foreseen that damage of a relevant type would occur as a result of an escape and the defendant does not take any steps to prevent escape from occurring.
If the damage that occurs is not known through scientific knowledge at the time the escape occurred, no liability imposed.

6th element
According to Cambridge Waters, for liability to arise the damage must be foreseen. In the present case, the defendant ought to have foreseen that their rock-blasting activity may result in the escape of rocks which may in turn cause damage. The vibrations from the rock-blasting operation that can be felt daily by the residents of Taman Mayang is a foreseeable damage. The defendant should have foreseen that the rockblasting operation may caused vibrations and it caused damage to the residents of Taman Mayang.

 The defendants should also have foreseen that the rock-blasting operation may result to the escape of rocks and somehow will cause damage to the residents of Taman Mayang. So, when as a result of the rock blasting, small pieces of rocks are strewn on the road leading to Taman Mayang, the damage is foreseeable.

 In the case of Kala, the escape of rock from the rock-balsting operation hit his car and broke the windscreen also a foreseeable damage as the operator should have foreseen that the escape of the rocks may somehow result in damage to the residents of Taman Mayang and their property.

 It can be seen that the 6th element of foreseeability of damage is fulfill and both party, Kala and the resident of Taman Mayang may proceed under this element.

Conclusion
As a conclusion, as all the elements under the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher, both Kala and the resident of Taman Mayang may continue to sue the quarry operator for all damages incurred as from the result from the rock blasting activity done by the quarry operators.