Liability Flashcards
Rylands v Fletcher
Facts: Fletcher constructed a reservoir on his land. Water escaped and flooded Rylands’ mine. Rylands sued Fletcher.
Legal Principle: Established the rule of strict liability for non-natural users of land where damage is caused by escaping substances.
Impact: Set the precedent for cases involving liability for escaped substances, irrespective of negligence.
Donoghue v Stevenson
Facts: Donoghue drank ginger beer containing a decomposed snail. She suffered illness and sued the manufacturer, Stevenson.
Legal Principle: Established the “neighbour principle” - a duty of care owed to foreseeable individuals who might be affected by one’s actions.
Impact: Laid the foundation for modern negligence law and expanded the scope of duty of care.
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
Facts: Water pipes burst during a frost due to negligence in maintenance by Birmingham Waterworks. Blyth’s house was damaged.
Legal Principle: Defined negligence as the failure to do something that a reasonable person would do or doing something that a reasonable person would not do.
Impact: Established the standard of care as what a reasonable person would do in the circumstances
Negligence definition
Blyth vs Birmingham water works
Omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something a reasonable man wouldn’t do
What must be proven for negligence
Duty of care was owed to the person
Breach of the Duty
Breach results in loss/damage
Who do we owe a duty of care
Owe it to anyone who should be in our “reasonable contemplation” when doing something
Case law for Duty of care/neighbour test
Donoghue vs Stevenson
Lord Atkin
A neighbour is a person of whom the individual should have had in mind when committing and act or omission
Defences to negligence
Act of God
Volenti non fit injuria - Voluntary assumption of risk
Contributory Negligence - Injured party in some way contributed to the cause or extent of loss - Sayers vs Harlow UDC (Stood on toilet roll holder in council owned toilet)
Public Nuisance
one that affects public as a whole
must prove you suffered beyond extent of general public
Private Nuisance
ongoing action that disturbs adjoining property
unlawful interreference with a persons use or enjoyment of land
damage must be suffered by occupants of adjoining land
“so use your land as not to harm your neighbour”
Defences to Nuisance
Statutory authority
Triviality
Lawful use of land
Reasonableness - having regard for locality concerned
Case law for strict liability
Rylands vs Fletcher
Built a reservoir above a mine
How does strict liability differ to regular
liability does not depend on proof of fault against the defendant
Principles of strict liability
Non- natural use of land
Dangerous substance (anything that can cause harm/loss when it escapes)
Escape - from defendants property
Damage/loss
Which case law reviewed strict liability
Cambridge water co vs Eastern Counties leather PLC
To be held liable there is a need for the type of damage cause by the escape to be foreseeable
