2B - Rylands v Fletcher - Case List

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher: case facts

Answer 1

D was the owner of a water mill who contacted with builders to construct a reservoir to supply water to the mill. The contractors discovered come disused mine shafts but didn’t seal them, as they appeared to be filled in. When the reservoir was filled, water flooded through these shafts, causing damage to C;s mine

Question 2

Rylands v Fletcher: legal principle

Answer 2

Created a tort where the D brings onto his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes and If he doesn’t, he is answerable for damage due to its escape

Question 3

Step 1 and 5: Read v Lyons: case facts

Answer 3

C worked in D’s factory, making explosives for explosives for the Ministry of Supply. An explosion killed a man and injured C. There was no evidence that negligence had caused the explosion

Question 4

Step 1 and 5: Read v Lyons: legal principle

Answer 4

There was no escape

Question 5

Step 2: Giles v Walker

Answer 5

No liability when weeds growing onto neighbouring land as they were naturally growing

Question 6

Step 2: Ellison v MOD

Answer 6

Rainwater accumulated naturally on an airfield at Greenham Common didn’t lead to liability when it escaped and caused flooding on neighbouring land
D didn’t bring onto his land as they were naturally occurring

Question 7

Step 3: Hale v Jenning Bros

Answer 7

A ‘chair-o-plane’ on a fairground ride became detached from the main assembly while in motion and injured a stallholder as it crashed to the ground. The owner of the ride was liable as the risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose.
One of the few personal injury claims that were accepted

Question 8

Step 4: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather: case facts

Answer 8

C’s waterworks extracted water for public consumption and the contamination from the D’s chemicals from tannery business meant it could not be used for drinking.

Question 9

Step 4 and 6: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather: legal principle

Answer 9

HOL said the use of the land was unusual
Non-natural = large quantity of chemicals even though it was an industrial premises
Non-natural doesn’t just mean artificial

Question 10

Step 4: Transco PLC v Stockport MBC

Answer 10

Non-natural use = ‘extraordinary and unusual’ supplying water to a block of flats was an ordinary use

Question 11

Step 4 and 5: Stannard v Gore

Answer 11

Where the things accumulated may be relevant. The storage of tires on an industrial estate was not a non-natural use

Question 12

Defences: Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

Answer 12

CONSENT
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

Question 13

Defences: Perry v Kendricks Transport

Answer 13

ACT OF A STRANGER

D is not liable if the escape is caused by the deliberate and unforeseen act of a stranger (of whom he has no control)

Question 14

Defences: Nichols v Marsland

Answer 14

ACT OF GOD
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, D is not liable for the damage as there is nothing he could have done to stop it

Question 15

Defences: Charing Cross Electric Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co

Answer 15

STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Water main burst causing damage to C’s property. D tried to rely on statutory authority, while statute granted permission to the D to keep water main at high pressure there was no obligation to do so - Unsuccessful.
D is not liable if the escape occurs during activities by an Act of Parliament

Question 16

Defences: LMS v Styrene

Answer 16

WRONGFUL ACT OF THIRD PARTY
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