Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
What does the rule in Rylands v Fletcher protect against?
Interference with land as a result of isolated escape from defendant’s land
Who can sue in Rylands v Fletcher ?
Claimants must have proprietary interest in the land affected
Who can be sued under Rylands v Fletcher?
The person who brings, collects and keeps the ‘thing’ onto the land (the creator of the nuisance; and/or
The person who has control over the land (occupier/owner)
What loss is recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher?
Property damage and consequential economic loss
What are the elements of Rylands v Fletcher?
- D must bring onto land and accumulate there
- for their own purposes anything likely to do mischief if it escapes
- the thing escapes
- escape causing foreseeable harm and
- the thing accumulated on the land was a non-natural use of land
What will amount the a thing that is likely to do mischief if it escapes?
Something that is capable of causing damage if it escapes.
Need to be dangerous in itself, just if it escapes.
Includes water, acid and explosives.
Must be exceptionally high risk of causing danger if it were to escape.
What is required for the thing to have ‘escaped’?
The thing brought onto the land must escape to land over which they have no control.
Escape can be slow and over a period of time.
Must be the substance that D has collected that escapes
What is the situation where fire is the thing that has escaped to another’s land?
Could be caught by Rylands v Fletcher if D started the fire.
If dangerous thing brought onto the land is fuel, then arguably caught by Rylands v Fletcher as fuel escaping with the fire
What is required for the escape to have caused foreseeable harm?
D need not have foreseen the escape but must have known or ought reasonably to have foreseen that the dangerous thing could, if it escaped cause damage.
Even if D has taken reasonable care to prevent the escape and the damage, D will still be liable if they fulfil the requirements for operation of the rule (so strict liability applies)
Why did the case of Cambring Water Co. v Eatern Counties Leather plc fail on grounds of foreseeable harm?
Pollution to water in borehole 1.3 miles away was not reasonably foreseeable.
Was not foreseeable that chemicals spilt on a concrete floor could cause damage to the claimant’s water
What amounts to non-natural use of the land?
Where use is a non-ordinary use of the land with ordinary use depending on time, place and context of the use of land.
Storing oil/chemicals non-natural use of land.
Water pipes not non-natural use of land.
What defences apply for the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
- common benefit
- act of default of the claimant
- statutory authority
- act of third party
- act of God
- contributory negligence
- consent
What is the common benefit defence?
Consent to the accumulation of the material can be implied if the substance had been accumulated for the common benefit of the claimant and the defendant
Eg sprinkler system common benefit
What is the defence of act or default of the claimant?
If the escape has been caused wholly by the claimant’s actions, there will be no liability
What is the defence of act of third party?
D will not be liable if they can show that the escape arose through the unforeseeable act of a stranger over whom they had no control.
