What is the test for the doctrine of strict liability for the escape of dangerous substances?
Saskatchewan, Canada
The following excerpt is from Lamberty et al. v. Saskatchewan Power Corporation et al, 1966 CanLII 358 (SK QB):
The modern doctrine of strict liability for the escape of dangerous substances had its genesis in 1866 in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330. It is authority for the rule that a 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 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 case created new law by extending the incidence of strict liability to the general category of all inherently dangerous substances and making the occupier from whose land they escape responsible, even if he had used the utmost care and diligence in devising means for preventing their escape.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What are the implications of the Rylands v Fletcher doctrine on the doctrine of strict liability? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Does the principle of strict liability apply in the case of property standing off, although adjacent to, a highway? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is the substance of an agreement that requires a review of the substance? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is the law on personal liability for executors? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
On what basis can the dental surgeon be found jointly responsible for the escape of blood into the lungs? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What constitutes an "unusual danger" to a person who is in possession of an unoccupied building? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Can the doctrine of common law be used as a cause of action? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
What is the liability of a private contractor who causes the construction of a bridge over the River estuary? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Does the doctrine of frustration apply when it is alleged that a change in circumstances after the formation of a contract renders it physically or commercially impossible to fulfil the contract? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
How is liability apportioned in a seatbelt case? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
