10 - Tort - Ryland v Fletcher Flashcards
What is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
Where something escapes from Dβs land to Cβs land causing foreseeable damage
π
π‘π§ποΈ
Who can sue under Rylands v Fletcher?
Must have proprietary interest in land affected
π‘
Who can be sued under Rylands v Fletcher?
- Person who brings, collects & keeps the thing onto the land πͺ
- Person who has control over the land (owner/occupier) π«π©
What damage is recoverable for Rylands v Fletcher?
- Property damage ποΈ
- Consequential econ loss π°
What are the requirements for Rylands v Fletcher?
- C must suffer some damage ποΈ
- D brings thing onto land & accumulates there for own purposes π
- The thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes (must be exceptionally high risk) π€ͺπ§¨
- Escape (can be slow, over a period of time) πͺ
- Escape causes foreseeable harm π§
- Non-natural use of land (must be extraordinary & unusual) π½
what cases are there demonstrating βbrings onto landβ under Rylands v Fletcher?
- spread of thistles were not brought onto land
πͺ»
what cases are there demonstrating βmischiefβ under Rylands v Fletcher?
π€ͺπ§¨
pipe carrying water that burst was not βexceptionally high riskβ and therefore not likely to cause nuisance.
π§πͺβπ§¨
what cases are there demonstrating βescapeβ under Rylands v Fletcher?
πͺ
held tyres on his land which caught fire. Held no RvF as it was the fire that had escaped, not the tyres
π π₯
what cases are there demonstrating βforeseeable harmβ under Rylands v Fletcher?
π§
leather chemical plant had concrete flooring. Chemicals seeped into soil causing damage to Cβs borehole 1.3 miles away - claim failed as not reasonably foreseeable that concrete would leak causing damage.
ππ§πͺ£
What defences are there for Rylands v Fletcher?
π€Ί
Same for public nuisance &:
- statutory authority π¬π§
- Common benefit π
- Consent π€
- Contributory negligence π€π³οΈ
- Act of claimant caused escape π€πͺ
- Act of 3rd party (unforeseeable act of a stranger over whom they had no control) π₯Έ
- Act of God (unforeseeable natural event)π§ββοΈ
what cases are there demonstrating βcommon benefitβ defence under Rylands v Fletcher?
π
theatreβs sprinkler system went off damaging shop next door. Held that system was for benefit of shop.
π¦πͺβ
what cases are there demonstrating βact of claimantβ defence under Rylands v Fletcher?
π€πͺ
C dug under Dβs canal causing a flood on Cβs land.
π·ππ€¦ββοΈ
what cases are there demonstrating βstatutory authorityβ defence under Rylands v Fletcher?
π¬π§
D was under an obligation to lay a high pressure water pipe. No liability when it burst.
ππͺπ
what cases are there demonstrating βact of godβ defence under Rylands v Fletcher?
π§ββοΈ
D had pools on his land, v. heavy rain caused them to burst damaging Cβs bridges. No liability as rain act of nature that was unforeseeable
πββοΈπ§οΈππ§β
What remedies are there for Rylands v Fletcher?
- Damages πͺ
- Injunction π¦