Paper 2 (Section B)

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 1

Where D accumulates something dangerous on his land which escapes and causes damage.

Question 2

Transco

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 2

In order to bring a claim, C must have a proprietary interest in the land.

Question 3

Read v Lyons

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 3

The person sued is the person whose land the thing escaped from.

Question 4

Ellison v Ministry of Defence

Answer 4

D must accumulate a thing, things that occur naturally won’t suffice (like rain)

Question 5

Read v Lyons pt 2

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 5

D must accumulate the thing on the land he controls

Question 6

Smith v Scott

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 6

If D has let the land out, then the tenants have control.

Question 7

Hale v Jennings

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 7

How forseeable the damage is if the thing escapes, not how forseeable it is that the thing will escape.

Question 8

Stannard v Gore

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 8

Where fire escapes + caused damage, D must have started or accumulated the fire. Just having things that can start the fire or worsen them isn’t enough.

Question 9

Richards v Lothian

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 9

Accumulating the thing must be a special use of the land.

Question 10

British Celanese v Hunt

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 10

Courts balance the danger of accumulating teh thing against public benefit.

Question 11

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 11

It will ALWAYS be a non-natural use of land to accumulate something extremely hazardous (such as chemicals)

Question 12

Read v Lyons pt 3

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 12

The thing must escape from D’s land and go to land that D does not control.

Question 13

Cambridge Water v ECL pt2

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 13

The type of damage caused must be forseeble. If, when escaping, the thing causes damage you would not expect, then D is not liable.

Question 14

Nicols v Marsland

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 14

Acts of God; Where the escape is caused by a natural or unforseeable event (full defence)

Question 15

Rickards v Lothian pt 2

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 15

Acts of a Stranger; Where the escape is caused by a person not under D’s control.

Question 16

Contributory Negligence

ALL

Answer 16

• Contributory Negligence (Law Reform) Act
• Where C adds to their own damage (reduces damages received)

Question 17

Volenti (Consent)

ALL

Answer 17

• Stermer v Lawson
• Where C consents to the accumulation

Question 18

Planning Permission

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 18

• Wheeler v Saunders
• Where D has permission to accumulate the thing

Question 18

Donoghue v Stevenson

Negligence

Answer 18

Defines negligence as a breach of duty of care causing reasonably forseeable damage to the claimant.

Question 19

BLYTH v Birmingham Waterworks

Negligence

Answer 19

D breaches their duty when they do something that a reasonable person would not do.

Question 20

Caparo Test

Negligence

Answer 20

1. Would a reasonable person forsee the risk of damage from what D has done?
2. Is there proximity between C and D? (physical/ relationship/knowledge)
3. Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty on D?

Question 21

Robinson

Negligence

Answer 21

D has a duty of care which is either from precedent/existing principles

Question 22

Miller v Jackson

Negligence + OCC

Answer 22

Size of Risk; A reasonable person would take more care, the higher the risk of damage is.

Question 23

Paris v Stepney Council

Negligence + OCC

Answer 23

Seriousness of potential harm; A reasonable person takes more care if the harm to the claimant would be worse

Question 24

Latimer v AEC

Negligence + OCC

Answer 24

Practicability of precautions; A reasonable person is expected to implement precautions that are practical (quick, cheap, easy)

Question 25

Watss v Herts

Negligence v OCC

Answer 25

Benefit of risk outweigh pubic benefit

Question 26

Bolam

Answer 26

Expertise/skill may raise the standard of care expected of D, meaning he will be compared to a person with expertise.

Question 27

Nettleship v Weston

Negligence

Answer 27

Inexperience doesn’t reduce the level of care expected of D. They would be judged against a competent person.

Question 28

Mullin v Richards

Negligence

Answer 28

D’s age may lower the level of care expected as he is compared to a person of the same age.

Question 29

Barnett v Chelsea HMC

Negligence

Answer 29

Factual Causation is proven through the ‘but for’ test’

Question 30

Wilkin-Shaw v Fuller

Negligence

Answer 30

In order to prove that D was the legal cause there must be an unbroken chain of causation. The chain can be broken by unforseeable events.

Question 31

The Wagon Mound

Negligence

Answer 31

C cannot recover unforseeable losses. He must show that the type of damage was reasonably forseeable.

Question 32

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Negligence

Answer 32

If the damage occurs in an unforseeable way, this is irrelevant because HOW the damage occurs does not affect remoteness.

Question 33

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

Negligence

Answer 33

If the damage is worse than expected, this is irrelevent because the extent of the damage does not affect remoteness.

Question 34

Smith v Leech Brain

Negligence

Answer 34

If the damage is worse than expected due to C’s vulnerabilities, this is irrelevant. Remoteness isn’t affected by the thin skull rule.

Question 35

Volenti non fit injuria

Negligence

Answer 35

1. C knew the precise nature of risk (what damage)
2. C coud exercise free will (was not under pressure)
3. C voluntarily accepted the risk (knew he was undertaking a risk)

Question 36

s1(3)

OCC LIABILITY 84

Answer 36

• a)