Chapter 11- Torts connected to land: Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 1

-D (mill owner) hired contractors to create a reservoir on his land as a water supply to the mill
-Contractors failed to block off disused mine shafts they found
-Shafts were connected to adjoining mills which became filled
-D at fault
(essential elements of the tort)

Question 2

Hale v Jenning Bros

Answer 2

-‘Chair-o-plane’ ride at a fairground
-Cart detached while in motion and injured a stallholder as it crashed
-Ride owner liable as the risk of injury was foreseeable
-1 case where personal injury was successful= which now isn’t possible
(Parties to an action= likely to do mischief if it escapes)

Question 3

Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore

Answer 3

-A fire spread from D’s tyre fitting business damaging the c’s adjoining property
-CoAs viewed that the tyres weren’t exceptionally dangerous or mischievious
-D wasn’t carrying on any non-natural use of land on a light industrial estate
(Parties to an action= likely to do mischief if it escapes)

Question 4

Rickards v Lothian

Answer 4

-Unknown person turned on tapes and blocked plugholes on the d’s premises so damage was caused in the flat below
-D wasn’t liable as the use of water in domestic pipes was a natural use of land
(Parties to an action= likely to do mischief if it escapes; non-natural use of land)

Question 5

Read v J Lyons and Co

Answer 5

-Munitions inspector was inspecting the interior of a munitions factory and was injured with a no. of employees when a shell exploded
-HoL held that the rule didn’t apply because there was ‘no escape at all of the relevant kind’
(Parties to an action= foreseeable damage)

Question 6

Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather

Answer 6

-D stored chemicals for leather tanning
-Frequent spillages and chemicals seeped through a concrete floor
-Polluted area where c extracted water for locals and involved them spending millions
-Water company claimed these expenses from factory owner
-HoL decided that the damage wasn’t reasonably foreseeable and too remote from the site of the spillage
(Parties to an action= foreseeable damage)

Question 7

Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd

Answer 7

-D’s parked bus on their parking space after draining tanks of petrol
-Stranger removed petrol cap
-Child injured when another threw match into tank which caused a fire
-No liability
-Valid defence of act of a stranger
(Defences)

Question 8

Nichols v Marsland

Answer 8

-D made 3 artificial ornamental lakes by damming a stream
-Freak thunderstorms and torrential rain broke river banks causing destruction to C’s bridge
-No liability due to extreme weather conditions and amounted to an Act of God
(Defences)

Question 9

Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Police

Answer 9

-Council responsible for a high pressure water pipe supplying flats
-Pipe leaked and caused an embankment to collapse exposing C’s gas pipeline and leaving it in a dangerous condition
-C sought repair costs
-HoL held that there was no accumulation of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escaped, and that also the use of land by the council was a normal use
(evaluation)