Ryands v Fletcher

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 1

The defendants built a reservoir for which they engaged contractors on their land. The reservoir was up a bit of a hill. That was to serve some industrial development that was going on.

Previously there had been some old mine shafts connecting the defendant’s and the claimant’s land. The contractors, without checking, assumed that these old mine workings had been blocked and filled in. Unfortunately, they had not been. So, when the reservoir was filled with water, and it was quite a large reservoir, the water went into the old mine workings on the defendant’s land and flowed into the claimant’s mine, flooding it.

There is a massive accumulation of water which flooded through old mine workings into the claimant’s coal mine.

I’m going to look at these facts in detail. I’m going to look at the facts in light of modern law; obviously the law of negligence and nuisance was developing, but in light of modern law of negligence as we now know it, there would not have been a claim against the land owner here. The fault lay with the contractors, and as often is the case, they had long since disappeared. So, there was no claim in the fledging law of negligence against the contractors.

There wasn’t any scope in the fledging law of private nuisance either, because this is a one off. There was no continuity as needed for the fledging Law of private nuisance.

For public nuisance there was only one person affected. So, there was insufficient spread of this danger for this to fall within what we now know as public nuisance.

Yet, within the context of the day, and this definitely is a social policy decision, the Court felt that there was a lacuna, a gap… Something was needed to protect neighbours from the ravages of industrialization.

Effectively it was a policy decision. The courts wanted to put in place a law to protect people from the ravages of industrialization. Citizens don’t control these factories and new developments, and at that time the capitalists were getting the benefit from them, not really the general community. So, it was a policy decision.

Question 2

Judge Blackburn & Lord Cairn

Answer 2

1) The defendant needs to bring something onto his land; something likely to do mischief, which is usually referred to as the “accumulation”. There has to be an accumulation of something likely to do mischief.
2) That something that escapes, and that then…
3) Represents a non-natural use of the defendant’s land.

Question 3

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994]

Answer 3

Lord Goff said that there was an extra requirement – the remoteness requirement.

The damage caused had to be FORESEEABLE.

Suddenly the strict liability tort, in a very obvious way, is watered down by this foreseeability requirement.

The Wagon Mound Test applied here on remoteness.

Lord Goff, through strictly obiter, linked Rylands v Fletcher to private nuisance. Only losses which fall within Rylands v Fletcher today are damage to land, and theoretically loss of amenity,

Again, from Lord Goff’s decision, as confirmed by Transco, only parties with proprietary interests are able to use Rylands v Fletcher. It is seen as a bespoke specific offshoot of private nuisance.

So, that limitation from the Hunter decision comes into this area of the law through the back door.

Question 4

Carstairs v Taylor (1870)

Answer 4

(Accumulation)

This case involved an industrial warehouse. On the top floor the defendant kept and stored cotton. Underneath, on the ground floor, the claimant stored rice. It was an industrial warehouse – on the top floor the defendant stored cotton, and underneath the claimant stored rice.

Through no particular fault, over time rats got into the roof area of the top floor and they gnawed through the roof. It was 1870, so it was quite an old building, possibly of wooden construction. The roof developed holes through rat infestation.

Because of the holes in the roof water came in, went down through the cotton, and it went into the rice, which was kept there, and ruined it.

The claimant sought to use Rylands v Fletcher, and failed this first hurdle. Neither the rats nor the water were positively brought onto the land by the defendant.

Question 5

Transco v Stockport [2004]

Answer 5

(Accumulation + additional/modified changes to test)

Lord Bingham said as regards likely to mischief, the ‘thing’ has to have an EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH RISK OF DANGER.

The defendant here owned some land, which included a disused railway embankment. On the land they built a block of flats. So, at Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council they built a block of flats, and under the railway embankment they laid the water pipes which served the block of flats.
For reasons unknown a leak developed in the water pipes. It then undermined the railway embankment, which exposed the gas mains pipeline which was operated by Transco. So, there was also a gas pipeline that ran quite deeply under this railway embankment. Because it was gas it was then exposed and it had to be dealt with as an emergency. Transco had to spend money in order to secure the safety of the gas pipeline.

The defendant either needs to know that there is an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief, or ought reasonably to have recognized it.

No longer is it just likely to do mischief, it has to be an exceptionally high risk of it.

On the facts of the case the court found that this was not satisfied. The danger was water in normal domestic pipes which did not carry with it, the court felt, this exceptionally high risk of mischief. It was just normal water pipes; they weren’t anything other than just pipes serving any old domestic dwelling, and that they said it did not carry any exceptionally high risk of mischief,

For that reason, and indeed others, the defendant was not liable.

Question 6

Rainham Chemicals v Belvedere Fish Guano Co [1921]

Answer 6

(Exceptionally high risk of mischief)

Chemical storage, particularly if they are stored in high quantities.

Question 7

National Telephone Company [1893]

Answer 7

(Not good example of mischief anymore)

Electricity… Normal domestic electricity. I doubt it would survive now after Transco

Question 8

Humphries v Cousins (1877)

Answer 8

(Not good example of high mischief anymore)

sewage just in normal sewage pipes. It is different if it is a large sewage collection, but it is just normal sewage running through pipes is probably not sufficiently high mischief

Question 9

Hale v Jennings Bros [1938]

Answer 9

(Not a good example of mischief anymore)

Dealt with a fairground ride — one of those chair-planes where a chair flew off. Again, I suspect that would fail through lack of foresight. The defendant would not know, or they ought not reasonably expect, that this might happen.

Question 10

Read v Lyons [1947]

Answer 10

(Escape part of test)

his was about a munitions factory. They were building armaments. The claimant was a munitions inspector. She attended the defendant’s factory, and she was injured when a munition exploded.

The court said that all of this happened on the defendant’s land, and whilst there may be liability and what we now call negligence, this wasn’t a case covered by Rylands v Fletcher. This was within the confines of the defendant’s land, and thus fell outside of Rylands.

That was another reason, by the way, why the Transco case failed. In the case, the water leak happened on land owned by the defendant. It didn’t escape from the defendant’s land. So, that was another second reason for the decision in Transco.

Question 11

Charing Cross Elec Co v Hydraulic Power [1914]

Answer 11

(Escape)

There was a massive water leak… Not just a small one as in the case of Transco… in the Charing Cross Elec Co v Hydraulic Power [1914] case. The water went off the defendant’s land, similarly to Rylands.

Question 12

Midwood v Manchester Corporation [1905]

Answer 12

There was a gas explosion which expelled gas off of the defendant’s land.

Question 13

Richards v Lothian [1913]

Answer 13

(Non-natural use)

Lord Moulton was the first to try this in Richards v Lothian [1913]. I am not going to bother you with the facts of this case, but Lord Moulton said “non-natural” didn’t quite encapsulate what this was about anymore. He said that there had to be some “special use”; something which brought increased danger to others.

“It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others…” (at 280).

Question 14

Transco v Stockport (Non-Natural Use Reformulation)

Answer 14

Lord Bingham said: ‘the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is engaged only where the defendant’s use is shown to be extraordinary and unusual’.

EXTRAORDINARY & UNUSUAL

Question 15

Northumbrian Water v MacAlpine [2014]

Answer 15

Water pipes, electricity, sewage pipe installation, and everything like that. Just normal domestic utilities. They aren’t going to be things that you can use Rylands v Fletcher for because of the change in focus of this particular rule.

Question 16

Stannard v Gore [2012]

Answer 16

The defendant was a supplier of tires and he stored them haphazardly on his land. Next door to him the claimant had an industrial property. It was adjoining properties. The defendant stored these tires, and he stored them rather haphazardly. The claimant was next-door.

There was then a fire which was not down to the defendant’s negligence. The court was happy that the fire was not down to the defendant’s negligence. It was an electrical fault that no one could have foreseen.

Because the tires were on the land, and they were stored in this rather haphazard way, the fire very very quickly spread. It was incredibly intense, and it led to the total destruction of the defendant’s and the claimant’s property. This fire burned down both the defendant’s property and the claimant’s property.

Because there was no carelessness, no negligence, as regards to this fire, a claim in negligence was not possible. So the claimant sued the defendant relying on Rylands v Fletcher.

The court said that Rylands v Fletcher could apply to fire in principle, but there was then a very large caveat. It only applied if the thing brought onto the land was fire – i.e., in stark contrast to most of the older cases, it was not enough merely to bring flammable things on. A lot of older cases were, therefore, considered to be wrongly decided.

Rylands v Fletcher can apply to fire, but only if fire is the thing which is brought onto the defendants land.

As the fire has to be brought onto the land, this effectively limits Rylands v Fletcher to cases where fires are started either deliberately or negligently. For those, there is already a duty of care in negligence. If it is an accident then it is not brought on to the defendant’s land. That was the case here.

This fire was just an accident. The defendant did not bring it onto his land either through deliberate action, or through negligence. According to Stannard v Gore, that type of case no longer falls within Rylands v Fletcher.

It was another narrowing down of Rylands v Fletcher’s scope.

Also, just another point, and this was not the point in Stannard v Gore, but if you do start a fire deliberately on your land… for example, you are a farmer, it might also today represent a natural use of your land. So, there is another reason why fires may fall outside of Rylands v Fletcher.

Question 17

(New) Rylands v Fletcher requirements

Answer 17

1) Accumulation: The defendant either needs to know that there is an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief, or ought reasonably to have recognized it.
2) The ‘thing’ must escape.
3) The Defendant’s use is shown to be EXTRAORDINARY & UNUSUAL.
4) Damage caused had to be foreseeable (remoteness Wagon Mound Test).