2B - Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
What are the elements of Rylands v Fletcher?
- Who can sue and be sued
- D brings onto his land an accumulation of the thing that escapes
- The thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes
- The thing amounts to a non-natural use
- The thing escapes
- The thing causes (foreseeable) damage
Step 1: Who can sue and be sued?
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a type of nuisance
The C must show that he has a proprietary interest in the land affected by the escape as an owner or tenant (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
D is the owner or occupier who accumulates the thing that escapes (Read v Lyons)
Step 2: D brings onto his land an accumulation of the things that escapes
The D must voluntarily bring onto his land an accumulation of the substance which escapes, ie. bring onto the land and collect and keep
Giles v Walker: no liability when weeds spread onto neighbouring land as they were naturally growing
Ellison v Ministry of Defence: rainwater accumulated naturally on an airfield at Greenham Common didn’t lead to a liability when it escaped and caused flooding on neighbouring land
Step 3: The thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes
The substance accumulated could be dangerous if stored in bulk/large quantity, therefore something is likely to do mischief if it escapes. This includes obviously hazardous materials, such as chemical, gas, oil, fireworks and explosives etc, but also less threatening substances, such as water (as in Rylands v Fletcher), or other materials, and even pets
Hale v Jennings Bros: ‘chair-o-plane’
Step 4: The thing amounts to a non-natural use
An example of a non-natural use is provided by Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather where D was a long-established tannery that used chemicals in the process of manufacturing leather. Chemicals from the D’s premises seeped down through the earth to contaminate the C’s borehole. The C’s waterworks extracted the water for public consumption and the contamination meant it could not be used for drinking, so the company sued for its loss
Non-natural doesn’t simply mean artificial, it means a use of the land which is unusual
Transco PLC v Stockport MBC: non-natural use= ‘extraordinary and unusual’ and supplying water to a block of flats was an ordinary use
Stannard v Gore: the storage of tyres on an industrial estate was not a non-natural use
Step 5: The thing escapes
The C must show that the substance in question escaped from the D’s land onto his land
Read v Lyons: C’s worked in D’s factory making explosives. An explosion killed a man and injured C. No evidence that negligence has caused the explosion. There was no escape
Rylands v Fletcher: if a thing was accumulated which was liable to catch fire and it did so, and the fire escaped, but not the ‘thing’ itself, there would be liability, assuming there was a non-natural use of land and damage
Stannard v Gore: D operated a tyre fitting and supply business. The fire started at D’s premises, which ignited and 3,000 tyres which spread destroying D’s premises and C’s adjoining unit
CoA held liability cannot arise under Rylands v Fletcher, if something is accumulated which catches fire, but the thing accumulated does not
Step 6: The thing causes foreseeable damage
The type of damage must be foreseeable to a reasonable person and not too remote. This was confirmed in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather in which the D escaped liability as it was reasonably foreseeable that the D’s activities would contaminate the C’s water. Only damage which is reasonably foreseeable is recoverable
Defences
The defences of consent and contributory negligence may apply to a claim of Rylands v Fletcher
But there are specific defences to a claim made under Rylands v Fletcher: an act of a stranger, an act of God. statutory authority and the wrongful act of a third party
Defences: Consent
Where C has consented to the thing is accumulated by the D there will be no claim. In Peters v Prince of Wales Theatres when the sprinkler system caused a flood due to the icy conditions the C was ruled to have consented to the sprinkler system as he also benefitted from it
Defences: Contributory Negligence
If the C is partly responsible for the escape then his damages may be reduced to reflect his fault
Defences: Act of a stranger
A D is not liable if the escape is caused by the deliberate and unforeseen act of a stranger. In other words someone over whom the D has no control
Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd
Defences: Act of God
An act of God is a natural event so enormous that it cannot be easily foreseen or guarded against such as a tornado, hurricane etc. If an escape is caused by such an event, then the D is not liable for the damage as there is nothing he could have done to stop it
Nichols v Marsland
Defences: Statutory Authority
D is not liable if the escape occurs during activities authorised by an Act of Parliament, provided negligence is not involved
In Charing Cross Electric Supply Co v Hydraulic Power a water main burst causing damage to C’s property. The D tried to rely on the defence of statutory authority. However, whilst the statute granted permission to the D to keep the water main at high pressure there was no obligation to do so. The defence was uncusccessful
Defences: Wrongful act of a third party
In LMS v Styrene polystyrene blocks were stored in a position close to hot wire cutting machines which made ignition more likely and where any fire was likely to spread. Storage represented a recognisable risk to the C and a non-natural use
Remedies
The main remedy is damages. Under the tort of Rylands v Fletcher only damages to land and goods stored on the land can be recovered, personal injury cannot be claimed
Rylands v Fletcher: The C claimed for damage to land
Jones v Festiniog Railway: A passenger train emitted sparks that set fire to the C’s haystack. The C claimed for damage to property
Transco v Stockport: it was confirmed a C cannot claim for death or personal injury
