The Restriction of Strict Liability
| Date | 01 October 1947 |
| Author | T. H. Tylor |
| Published date | 01 October 1947 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1947.tb00060.x |
‘J’HE
RESTRICTlON
OF
STRICT LIABILITY
‘MY
Lords, nothing could be simpler than the facts in this
appeal
;
nothing more far-reaching than the discussion of
fundamental principles to which
it
has given rise.’ With these
significant words Lord Macmillan began his judgment in the
appeal of
Read
v.
J.
Lyons
4
Co.,
L’td.,
[1947]
A.
C.
156,
at
170,
a decision which must rank forthwith as a leading autho-
rity by reason of the extensive limitations it imposes on liability
under the rule in
Rylands
v.
Fletcher.
Further emphasis was
given to the privileged position in English law of rights over
land, and Lords Simon and Porter, at pp.
167
and
178
respec-
tively, cited with approval the dictum
of
Lindley,
L.J.,
apropos of
Rylands
v.
Fletcher
from
Green
v.
Chelsea Water-
works
Co.,
70
L.T. at
549
:
‘
That decision is not to be extended
beyond the legitimate principle on which the House of Lords
decided it.
If
it were extended as far as strict logic might
require,
it
would be a very oppressive decision
’.
The simple facts of
Read
v.
Lyons
were that the respondents
occupied and operated the Elstow ordnance factory as agents
of the Ministry of Supply, its owners. The appellant was an
inspector, employed by the Ministry. In discharge
of
her
duties, she was present in the shell-filling shop when an
explosion occurred causing her personal injuries for which the
damages were assessed at
2575.
No
negligence was averred
or
proved. Cassels,
J.,
held such ultra-hazardous activity
imposed a strict liability and gave judgment for the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal reversed this on the ground that no cause
of action was disclosed,
Rylands
v.
Fletcher
being inapplicable
in the absence of an escape from the defendant’s land.
In the House of Lords, liability was measured by the duty
owed by an occupier to an invitee. At p.
185
Lord Uthwatt
epitomises the occupier’s liability to the different classes of
entrant. ‘Put broadly, the trespasser can complain of
uncivilised conduct, and if
a
child, of the fascination offered
by
the occupier’s land to which, with resulting damage
to
him-
self, he has not unnaturally succumbed. The demands of polite
society are thereby satisfied. The bare licensee is entitled to
assume that the gift to him possesses its face value as the
occupier sees
it,
but cannot otherwise call for a review of its
396
To continue reading
Request your trial