r v f scenario

Question 1

how do you establish r v f

Answer 1

C needs to prove that D brought onto land something which is likely to cause mischief if it escapes, which amounts to a non-natural use of the land, and which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to the adjoining property.

Question 2

what grounds can you claim r v f

Answer 2

must have an interest in the land. D must be the owner or occupier of the land (Read v Lyons) and have some control over the land.

Question 3

first element

Answer 3

Defendant must bring something onto the land (e.g., not naturally present, as in Giles v Walker).
No liability for natural accumulation (Ellison v Ministry of Defence).

Question 4

second element

Answer 4

The thing must be likely to cause harm if it escapes (e.g., electricity, fumes).
Damage must be foreseeable, not escape (Hale v Jennings).
No personal injury claims (Transco v Stockport BC).
Fire: Only the thing, not the fire itself, must escape (Stannard v Gore).

Question 5

third element

Answer 5

The use must be “extraordinary and unusual” (Transco v Stockport).
Involves increased risk to others (Rickards v Lothian).
Technological changes affect what’s considered non-natural (e.g., a car in a garage with petrol in Musgrove v Pandelis).
Large quantities or potentially dangerous activities are non-natural (Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather).
Public benefit can make it natural (British Celanese v Hunt).

Question 6

final element

Answer 6

Damage must be to adjoining property (Read v Lyons, Transco v Stockport BC).
Escape must occur from the defendant’s land to somewhere outside their control (Read v Lyons).
Damage must be reasonably foreseeable (Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather).