Read v

J Lyons & Co Ltd

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Trial CourtAppellant: ReadRespondent: LyonsDecision: Appellant won

Court of AppealAppellant: LyonsRespondent: ReadDecision: Appellant won

House of LordsAppellant: ReadRespondent: LyonsDecision: Respondent

won

Material

Facts

Respondent : J Lyons & Co Ltd (agent)

Appellant : Read (employee)

Appellant was injured by the explosion of a shell while discharge of her duty in the factory.

Appellant sued the respondent for damages.

The cause of action is damages for personal injuries.

LEGAL ISSUE

Whether the manufacturer is under strict liability to persons on the premises as well as to persons outside such premises .

RATIO

› Occupier is not liable for resulting damage to an invitee without any proof of negligence at all.(by Lord Viscount Simon )

› Persons injured by the explosion inside or outside the defendant’s premises should prove negligence to render the defendant liable.(by Lord Macmillan)

› There must be escape from a place over which a defendant has some measure of control to a place where he has not.(by Lord Porter)

› All the circumstances of the time and place must be taken into consideration, so what might be regarded as dangerous or non-natural may vary according to those circumstances.(by Lord Porter)

› A man is not liable unless dangerous things escape from his premises and injure others(by Lord Simonds)

› A duty of care to an invitee is necessary but a claim based only on the dangerous nature of the business for personal injuries is not admissible

(by Lord Uthwatt)

Authority FollowedHoward v Furness Houlder Argentine

Lines LtdPlaintiff was injured by the explosion on board a ship. The principle of Rylands v Fletcher is not applicable because the injuries were caused on the premises of the defendants, there was no escape of the steam off the premises and the steamship owners were not making an unnatural user of their premises.

AUTHORITY NOT FOLLOWED Rylands v Fletcher

› In the absence of any proof of negligence, there must be an escape of that object which causes damage, then only the doctrine of Rylands v Fletcher is applicable.

› The doctrine of Rylands v Fletcher was not applicable in this case because the essential condition of “escape” was absent in this case.

Decision

House of Lords affirmed Court of Appeal’s decision.

The appeal was dismissed. Respondents were not liable since the

essential condition of “escape” was absent in this case.

Reasoning Although the high-explosive shells clearly

were “dangerous things”, the strict liablility imposed by Rylands v Fletcher requires an escape of the thing that caused the injury.

Regarding condition “non-natural use of land”, it was argued that running a munitions factory during wartime could be considered natural use of land.

The elements of “escape” and “non-natural use” was absent in this case, so the defendant was held not liable.

Comment

Claims for personal injuries under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher should be

allowed to ensure the accountability of an occupier for dangerous activities on his land.

The End