(GREEN) Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What is the rule from Rylands v Fletcher?

A

It applies when D has accumulated something dangerous on their land which escapes and causes damage. D would be responsible for the damage which is a natural consequence of its escape.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the elements of Rylands v Fletcher?

A

-D must bring or accumulate something onto their land
-That thing must be likely to cause mischief if it escapes
-Bringing or accumulating that thing must be a non natural use of the land
-The thing must actually escape and cause reasonably foreseeable damage
-C can sue D

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Which case said that the defendant must control the land?

A

Read v Lyons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the legal principle of Smith v Scott?

A

Where the owner has let land, the tenants have control of that land. However, the owner can still also be in control of the land.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What amounts to bringing or accumulating something onto D’s land?

A

If it is anything D brings or accumulates themselves or D adds to something already on the land. If the thing was already there before D or came onto the land without D bringing it there, D cannot be liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is the legal principle of Ellison v Ministry of Defence?

A

Where the thing causing damage naturally accumulated on the land, it can’t be said that D has brought it onto his land.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does it mean that the thing must be likely to cause mischief if it escapes?

A

The reasonable person could foresee damage if the thing escapes. It does not have to be foreseeable that the thing will escape.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Which case proves that the likelihood of escape is not relevant, just that damage is foreseeable if the thing escapes?

A

Hale v Jennings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Which case would you use for fire and what is the legal principle?

A

Stannard v Gore- where fire escapes and causes damage, D must have brought that fire onto his land, not just objects which start or worsen the fire.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Which cases would you use for a non-natural use of land?

A

-Rickards v Lothian
-British Celanese v A H Hunt Ltd
-Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How did the court define a non-natural use of land in Rickards v Lothian?

A

Some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, not an ordinary use of the land. (Decide if the dangerous thing fits in with the purpose of the land).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What did British Celanese v Hunt say in relation to a non natural use of land?

A

If the use of land provides a benefit to the community, it is less likely to be a non natural use of land.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What did Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather say in relation to a non natural use of land?

A

If the thing that escapes is inherently dangerous (i.e. a high risk of danger from the use of land) it will be a non natural use despite the other two factors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Which case defined an escape and what was the definition?

A

Read v Lyons. Escape means the thing goes into a place where D does not have occupation or control.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Which case says that the damage caused by the thing escaping has to be reasonably foreseeable?

A

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How do you determine if the damage caused was reasonably foreseeable?

A

The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable but not how the damage was caused or the extent (like negligence but the cases are not needed).

17
Q

Who can sue under Rylands v Fletcher?

A

Transco v Stockport MBC- C must have a proprietary interest in the land affected.

18
Q

Who can be sued?

A

Read v Lyons- D must be in control of the land the thing escapes from in order to be sued.

19
Q

Which defences apply for Rylands v Fletcher?

A

-Volenti
-Contributory negligence
-Act of a stranger
-Act of God

20
Q

How does act of a stranger work and which case did it apply to?

A

This defence works when the escape is caused by someone D does not have control over. Rickards v Lothian.

21
Q

How does an act of God work and which case would you use?

A

When the escape is caused by some natural force that a reasonable person could not foresee or prevent. Nichols v Marsland.

22
Q

What is the remedy for Rylands v Fletcher?

A

Damages because damage has to be caused here.