The Tort of Strict Liability: A Timeless Principle
The tort of strict liability is a common law principle that has stood the test of time. This principle holds individuals responsible for harm caused by dangerous substances or animals on their premises, regardless of fault. In essence, if you keep something hazardous on your property, you’re liable for any injuries it causes to your neighbors or the community.

Key Aspects of Strict Liability
Strict liability applies to dangerous animals, substances, or structures that can escape and cause harm. The owner or keeper of the hazardous item is responsible for any injuries it causes, even if they’re not directly at fault. This principle holds, regardless of whether the escape is due to the owner’s actions or not.
Landmark Case: Rylands v. Fletcher
The principle of strict liability was famously established in the landmark case of Rylands v. Fletcher. In this case, a reservoir built on the defendant’s land flooded the plaintiff’s mine due to the careless omission of independent contractors. The court held the defendant strictly liable for the damage, setting a powerful precedent.
PER BLACKBURN J.
“The rule of law is, that the 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 in at his own peril, and, if he fails to do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.’’

Remedy for Victims
If you’re harmed by a dangerous substance or animal that escapes from someone’s property, you can bring a claim against them. If you prove that the hazardous item caused harm, the court will provide a remedy in your favor. This principle ensures that those responsible for hazardous substances or structures take accountability for any harm caused.

Strict Liability: Liability for Animals
The principle of strict liability, as established in Rylands v. Fletcher, extends to animals, making owners responsible for harm caused by their animals, regardless of whether the animal is considered dangerous or not. This means that if an animal attacks or causes injury to someone, the owner can be held liable.
However, this principle is not absolute, and defendants have the opportunity to prove that they should not be held liable if the harm caused was not directly due to their actions. The courts have recognized certain defenses, including:

• Act of God
• Plaintiff’s default
• Volenti non fit injuria (consent to risk)

Animal Liability under Strict Liability is divided into two main categories:

Scienter Action Rule (Liability for Dangerous Animals):

Cattle Trespass

 Scienter Action (Liability for Dangerous Animals)

This branch of strict liability focuses on dangerous animals, where liability hinges on the owner’s prior knowledge of the animal’s conduct. Proving this can be challenging for the plaintiff, as they must demonstrate that the defendant knew of the animal’s vicious tendencies. This is only possible if the plaintiff has evidence of previous incidents or if the animal’s behavior was directly observed by the plaintiff.

The Scienter Action Rule categorizes dangerous animals into two groups:

Animals Ferae Naturae (Wild Animals)
These animals are inherently dangerous, such as lions, tigers, elephants, and hyenas. Their wild nature makes them a risk to humans, and owners are strictly liable for any harm caused, regardless of:

• Prior knowledge of the animal’s behavior
• Whether the animal was tamed or not

In Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus (1957), the owner of an elephant was held liable for the elephant’s actions, despite having no prior knowledge of any aggressive behavior.

Animals Mansuetae Naturae (Tamed Animals)
These animals are normally domesticated but may occasionally attack humans, such as dogs. Liability arises only if the owner knew of the animal’s vicious tendencies. To establish liability, the plaintiff must prove:

• The animal had a vicious tendency
• The owner was aware of this tendency

In summary, owners of wild animals are strictly liable for any harm caused, while owners of domesticated (or tamed) animals are liable only if they knew or should have known of the animal’s dangerous behavior.

UNDER CATTLE TRESPASS
Cattle Liability under Rylands v. Fletcher: Owners of cattle that stray onto another’s property are strictly liable for any damage caused, regardless of fault or negligence. This includes damage to crops, property, or injury to people. The owner is responsible for containing their cattle and preventing escape, and will be held liable if they fail to do so. This can effectively work to curtail the incessant encroachment of farms by errant Fulani herders but the problem is that they are normadic and cant be identified with a known address or property that can be used to offset damages caused. However it is yet to be tested even with the unending injustice against farmers.

In Jos, Nigeria, and other parts of the country, a growing trend of rearing exotic and vicious dogs as pets has emerged. This phenomenon has raised concerns about public safety, as these animals pose a significant threat to human life and limb. Under the doctrine of strict liability, owners of such dogs can be held liable for any harm caused by their pets, regardless of whether they were aware of the animal’s vicious tendencies or not. This means that if an exotic dog attacks someone, its owner can be sued for damages, even if they took precautions to prevent the attack. As this trend continues to rise, it is essential for dog owners to be aware of their responsibilities and potential liabilities under the law, emphasizing the need for responsible pet ownership and prioritizing public safety.

RINDAP NANJUL DANJUMA Esq.,
Legal Practitioner.
[email protected]
+2349062164142

count | 222

Beware: Your Pet Could Land You in Court – Rindap Nanjul Danjuma Esq