Is a single isolated escape a prerequisite for a finding of strict liability pursuant to the Rylands v Fletcher doctrine?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Smith v. Inco, 2010 ONSC 3790 (CanLII):
Considering these fundamental principles, whether the escape is a single isolated escape or a continuous long term escape should be of no consequence. Therefore, in my view, there is no requirement in Ontario that a single isolated escape is a prerequisite for a finding of strict liability pursuant to the Rylands v. Fletcher doctrine.
"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
When will the court grant relief under the Fletcher doctrine under the Rylands v. Fletcher doctrine? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for strict liability in the context of the doctrine of Rylands v Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for finding Inco liable under private nuisance or the rule in Rylands v Fletcher v Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
Does strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher apply to "ultra hazardous activities"? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on strict liability in cases like Rylands v Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
Does the expansion of strict liability under the banner of Rylands v. Fletcher to all hazardous activities such as sewage blockage in all hazardous areas? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for the doctrine of strict liability for non-natural use of land? (Ontario, Canada)
When will the court make a finding of fact or finding of not finding fact in a personal injury case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the effect of Rylands v Fletcher v Fletcher on the use of real property? (Ontario, Canada)
