Does strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher apply to "ultra hazardous activities"?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Smith v. Inco Limited, 2011 ONCA 628 (CanLII):
The judgment in Tock forecloses treating strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher as referable to all "ultra hazardous" activities. As explained in Tock, the rule is triggered by "a user inappropriate to the place". The appropriateness of a use depends on factors that include, but are not limited to, the risk posed by the use.
"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
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 strict liability in the context of the doctrine of Rylands v Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the current state of the law on strict liability in cases like Rylands v Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a single isolated escape a prerequisite for a finding of strict liability pursuant to the Rylands v Fletcher doctrine? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
When will the court grant relief under the Fletcher doctrine under the Rylands v. Fletcher doctrine? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the effect of Rylands v Fletcher v Fletcher on the use of real property? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for finding Inco liable under private nuisance or the rule in Rylands v Fletcher v Fletcher? (Ontario, Canada)
What are the factors required for the rule in Rylands v Fletcher to apply? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a municipality be held liable if it fails to take steps within a reasonable time to eliminate a hazard after the hazard has become known? (Ontario, Canada)
