Ryan V Fletcher Flashcards
Rule of Ryan v fletcher.
definition of Mr Justice Blackburn
a person who, for purposes of his own, brings onto his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in his peril and if he does not do so he is prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the natural consequence of its escape
prima facie - is a latin meaning meaning at fight sight - used to describe when there is enough evidence to suppoprt the case at first galance
peril - exposure to the risk of being injured, destroyed or lost
Cambridge water co v eastern countries leather plc 1994
the type of harm should be foreseeable
ryalnds v fletcher
the d, a mill owner, hired contractors to create a reservoir on his land to act as a water supply to the mill. The contractors negligently failed to block of disused mineshafts that they came caross during their evcavations. Uknown to tthe contractors, these shafts were connected to the other mine works adjoining land. when teh resovior was filled water flooded the neighboirng mines.
- water was nit natrual
-it was likley to cause mischief if the water escaped - reasonably forsele it would could harm if the water had left - which amounts tiothe unnatrual use of the land
- which it eventually did escape and cause reasonably forseeable damage to adjoining property
key elements that where established in Ryan and fletcher
1.bringing onto the land and ana cumulation (or storage)
- of a thing likely to cause mischief if is escapes
- which amounts to a non-natural use of the land
- which does escape eventually and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property
they must also have conrol over the land
Read v Lyons 1947
viscount Simon established in the case of read v Lyons that the defendant must have control over the land on which the material is stored
interest in the land - owner ot renter
- element (the bringing onto the land) established in Ryan v fletcher
- bringing onto the land a substance which is nit natrualy presnt on the land
- giles v walker 1890
- ellison v ministry of defence 1997
giles v walker 1890
used for element 1 of the Ryan v fletcher test
there was no liability of weeds growing onto neighbouring land as weeds grow their naturally
ellison v ministry of defence 1997
used for element 1 of the Ryan v fletcher test
rainwater accumulated naturally on an airfield at Greenham Common and did not lead to liability when it escaped and flooded neighbouring land - natural
- element ( the thing is likely to to mischief if it escapes) established in the ryan v fletcher
- this is a test of foreseeability
- only the damage is foreseeable
for example thing that are reasonable foreseeable to cause mischief
- gas and electricity
- poisonous fumes
- a flag pole
-tree branches
- an occupied chair from a chair-o-plane (hale v jennings bros 1938)
hale v jennings bros 1938
the claimant was liable as the risk of injury was foreseeable to cause mischief if the car came loose
legal principle - Rylands v Fletcher can be used to claim for personal injury
- element (a non-natural use of the land) established in Rylands v fletcher
case law, suggests that non-natrual refers to some extordinary or unusual use of the land. menaing storing domestic things even if they are niot dangerous or dangerous or unatrual
the courts have decided a few things to be natrual
-a fire in a grate which spread to the claimants presmeies
-defective electrical wiring that caused a fire
- domestic water supply
this concept will change over time, due to technology and lifestyle.
e.g. ,Musgrove v Pandelis 1919 - keeping a car in a garage with petrol in the tank was seen as a non-natural use of the land
in the house of lords, the lord cairns
said along the lines ‘if the defendant desired to use it for any purpose which may be a non-natural use and in consequence of doing so it causes mischief then it appears to me that the defendant were doing so at their own peril - risk
Musgrove v Pandelis 1919
case for element 3 = which amounts to the non natural use of the land
Musgrove v Pandelis 1919 - keeping a car in a garage with petrol in the tank was seen as a non-natural use of the land
rickards v othian 1913
case for element 3 = which amounts to the non natural use of the land
an unknownturned on the water taps and blocked the plugs holes on the defednats premesies, so that the damage was caused in the flat below. d was not liable as the use of water indomestic pipes waas a natrual use of land
legal principle - water in domestic pipes was a natrual use of land and not unatrual so under the third element the d was not guilty
British Celanese v A H Hunt Ltd 1969
under element 3
the defendant stored strips of metal foil, which were used in the manufacturing of electrical components, some of these strips of foil blew of the defendant land onto the electricity substation, causing a power failure.
Court held that - sue of the land was natural because of the benefit obtained by the local population
legal principle- the courts accept that certain activities may lead to a potential level of danger, which amounts to a non-natural use of the land, whatever benefit the public = dont allow everything, accept certainess of danger not all.
- element (the thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage) established in the Ryland v fletcher
key cases for element 4
Read v llyons and co Ltd
Hale v Jennings Bros 1938
Read v llyons and co Ltd
4th elemt of the rylands v fletcher
the substance must move from one property to another for there to be liability
Hale v jennings Bros 1938
element 4.
there can be liability if both claimant and defendant are on the land
cambridge water co. eastern counties leather
element 4.
the damage must be reasonably foreseeable
LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd 2005 - more justice questions
d factory contained a alarge amount of flaable material which was stored close to hot wire cutting machines. fire broke out
a successful claim for damages caused by fire
stannard t/a wyern tyres v gore 2012
updated the 2005 case principle
originally they agreed with the Lms international 2005 but debate in the court of appeal lead to the dealing with the issue of damages caused by fire - which updated the previous precedent
damages caused by fire
said that, damage caused by fire could fall in Rylands v fletcher but may be rare because
1. it is the thing that is brought onto the land that nees to escape not vthe fire
2. a dangerous fire may have deliberatley or negligently started, not brought onto the land
3. starting a fire may be an ordinary use of the land
- cases of fire damags would now be difficult to claim under ryland v fletcher
defences for the defednat to use
- consent in it together
- act of a stranger - perry v kendrick transport
-act of god - Nichols v marsland 1876 - unpredictable and unreasonable like weather
- statutory authority - permission or government
- contributory negligence - law reform (contributory negligence act 1945)
perry v Kendrick transport
stranger removed the petrol cap and child through a match stick which ignited the fumes
act of a Stranger can be a defence
Nichols v marsland 1876
thunderstorm caused damage
legal principle - extreme conditions that no human foresight can provide against can be a defence
remedies
as their is damage to property the cost of the repair will be the amount of damages
development of rylands v fletcher
originaaly a claim for damage to property and person
however the case of Rickards v Lothian restricted the approach and encourages claimants to use negligent claims
as strict liability - RvF should be easier to claim
however there are a number of defences that make it difficult to claim
-proving non-natrual use of the land
- only if the thing escape (read v lyons)
=- special use of tyhe land that brings increased dnager (Rickards v Lothian )
- the type of damage is forseebale (cambridge v water)
Rylands v fletcher
. no fault/ strict liability
. the claimant has to prove that the storage of a non-natural substance
. the damage was reasonable forseeable
. the reason for the escape does not have to be proven
not to worry to much about this but the reasonably forseeable part is crucial
evaluation of rylands v fletcher
pearsons report 1978. RvF should abolish and replaced with a statutory scheme for injuries suffered by hazardous activries
- research act 1975
-nuclear instillations act 1965, 1969) - health and safatey at work 1974
