Are you curious about strict liability offences examples? According to the Cambridge Dictionary, industrialization is defined as the process or activity of the development of industries in a country. Industrialization enhances the development and prosperity of the economy.

In addition, it results in the growth of population and urbanization. However, at the same time, due to the rapid increase of industrial growth and low landmass, creates environmental issues such as air, soil, and water and habitat pollution.

On account of the booming of factories, the burning of fossil fuels generates smoke and emissions which cause air pollution. Furthermore, other heavy metals, as well as poisonous or toxic chemicals, will leach into the soil and pollute any living or crops that grow there and cause soil contamination.

Strict Liability Offences Examples

Water pollution is caused by the factories that are built near or next to natural water sources like the sea, river and so on. There are many forms for the toxins to flow into the water which are solid, liquid or gaseous.

Moreover, industrialization also brings dramatic destruction to the habitat of animals because of deforestation for their lumber and the destruction of ecosystems to create roads. It will also lead to the extinction of plants and animals if the living are not able to adapt to their new habitat or surroundings.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, urbanization is defined as the process or activity by which huge numbers of people start to leave the countryside and stay in cities. In other words, it can be also a process by which more and more people become permanently living in a relatively small area and thus forming a city.

The Evolution of Strict Liability Laws

Normally, urbanization occurs primarily due to the movement of people from the area of rural to areas urban and this ends up with the increasing size of the urban population as well as the extent of urban areas.

This also results in the development of land use, activities of economy and culture. Although urbanization provides numerous advantages to society such as higher levels of education, better access to the services of society chances for political and cultural participation and a longer life expectancy as well as lower fertility, it also brings disadvantages to society.

Strict Liability Offences

For instance, because of uncontrolled migration, and unplanned and rapid urban growth, urbanization causes poor infrastructures like inadequate water, housing and sanitation, and services of health care and transportation.

Simultaneously, due to the overcrowded conditions of living, there may be a lack of job supply and this increases the pressures of urban living which will lead to crime and other results of deprivation of social.

More seriously, it causes pollution of water, wildlife, air and land which will affect people’s health condition. Besides, the increasing demands on resources, the number of buildings and construction as well as the rapid development on hill slopes impacts the environment physically in numerous ways and also causes landslides.

The defendant will be responsible

Often, strict liability is the infliction of liability on the people or a party even if the fault is not found; for example, tortious purpose or negligence.

The only burden of proof of this offence is on the plaintiff to prove that the tort happened or the conduct of the defendant did not meet the expected and reasonable standard of care and then the defendant will be responsible.

However, since the element of foreseeability is added to the proof of this offence as a limitation, it makes strict liability less strict and it is harder to stand on the plaintiff’s side or to protect them. Thus, it is deemed that the application of foreseeability is irrelevant nowadays.

For your information, foreseeability is a test to determine whether the defendant has exercised due care. Nonetheless, it is not logical to implicate foreseeability to offence strict liability because the absence of due care is not needed to establish liability.

Strict Liability Offences Examples

Although there are cases that recognize this element such as Green v American Tobacco Co³⁴ which the court held that the doctrine of foreseeability did not limit the implied warranty, there are still cases that the court did not apply this doctrine due to its irrelevance.

For instance, in the case of Howes v Hansen, the court still relied on the previous concept of negligence and held that strict liability is imposed in which foreseeability has no limitation even though the doctrine of foreseeability is an accepted doctrine in the law of tort.

Bringing back to the point I mentioned just now, foreseeability has made strict liability more lenient.

This is because the claimant or the plaintiff has to prove one more element that the defendant could have foreseen the damages that may be caused. However, it is easier for the defendant to escape from the liability by claiming or proving that the results cannot be foreseen.

A test of proximate cause

In the case of Berkebile v Brantley Helicopter Corporation, the court stated that foreseeability is a test of negligence but not a test of proximate cause; a test of whether he could have foreseen a particular injury.

Hence, foreseeability becomes the core of limiting the defendants’ liability for unknown dangers which has made it more difficult to protect the claimant or the plaintiff.

Thus, when urbanization occurs, there are lots of mischievous acts to be done and accumulated as well and it makes it no longer an appropriate doctrine to be used nowadays.

The wrongful act of an individual

On the other hand, there is another offence that can be related to industrialization and urbanization in this era which is a nuisance. As we know, the definition of nuisance is the wrongful act of an individual by illegally disturbing him in the possession of his property or in some circumstances, the exercise of their common right.

The duty of care’s breach is not concerned under this offence but it is to look at the unreasonable interference with others’ property.

So, as long as there is an act that will lead to unreasonable interference, the defendant will be liable for this offence.

Nevertheless, in the case of Hunter v Canary Wharf, the court stated that the claimant or the plaintiff must have an interest in the affected properties like land. Normally, it will be the tenants or freeholders in the enjoyment of the question property.

Numerous specific defences

Nuisances not only can be committed by the creator but also by the people who continue or adopt the nuisance created by others or the authority that authorizes a nuisance.

There are numerous specific defences that can be raised for nuisance; however, it is not included in the fact that the defendants have organized their enterprise with sufficient skill and care.

For instance, if there is a factory producing emissions of toxic or offensive smells, although the owner has taken all the necessary and available precautions to lower the degree of the smells to the minimum, the owner will still be liable for nuisance if the emissions of smells are unreasonable.

Restrictions Placed By Parliament

The location of the factory may be relevant as the factory will not be allowed to be built near the housing areas.

Besides, if the activity of industrialization has been exercised as a nuisance for 20 years or more without any complaint, the defendant will not be liable for it even though there is a complaint after 20 years.

However, if the activity is sanctioned by an act of Parliament, it can be carried out as long as it is not contrary to the restrictions placed by Parliament and it is not performed negligently.

Everyday Situations: Typical Examples of Strict Liability Offences

Since both the offences of strict liability and nuisance have the elements of reasonableness, their differences should be discussed so as to see the reasons why nuisance is more relevant than strict liability in the current era.

For the intention of commission of an act, if the act done by the defendant is unintentional but causes annoyance due to lack of due care, it is classified as a strict liability while if the act done is intentional, it will be classified as a nuisance.

In addition, the owner of the property can claim a writ under nuisance if he can prove that the disturbing of his right of possession of his property by the act of the defendant is intentional.

Cases of nuisance

Apart from that, strict liability which is the principle laid down in the case of Rylands v Fletcher, cannot be imposed universally to all cases of a nuisance as under this principle, liability will only be imposed on the defendants who can foresee the reasonable damage caused.

Thus, nuisance is more relevant in the 21^st century as a liability in nuisance can be said that it is both fault and strict based. It is said to be strict because even though the defendant has taken all the reasonable and proper care and precautions to prevent the damage from happening.

But he would still be liable, unlike strict liability, the liability of the defendants can be escaped by proving that he could not reasonably foresee the damage.

But, meanwhile, one can seldom assure that adverse, foreseeable and certain consequences will not arise although he has undertaken all proper and possible cautions.

If you are looking for strict liability offences examples, feel free to review the links on this page.