Ryland & Fletchers TORT Flashcards
What did it start as(liability wise)
Strict liability so whether they could have taken precaution to prevent the damage
how did it start
Ds, mill owners in the coal mining area of Lancashire, have constructed a reservoir on their land. water broke through the filled-in shaft of an abandoned coal mine and flooded connecting passageways into the plaintiff’s active mine nearby
what laws were they free of
negligence, trespass and nuisance as they didn’t exist
definition of Ryland and Fletchers
if a defendant brings into their land something which is likely to cause damages if it escapes, they are liable for damages if it does escape
what does Ryland and fletcher use
strict liability and foreseeability
what did lord Cairns rule
that the principle applied only to ‘non-natural’ use of the D’s land, as distinguished from ‘any purpose for which on the ordinary course of the enjoyment of land be used’.
what did the claimant played into this
as with nuisance a C must have an interest in the land affected thus a C must own, rent or have some other form of property interest in the land affect.
what did the defendant played into(case)
read v Lyons 1947- D must be either the owner or occupier of land who satisfies for four requirements of the Ryland’s v fletcher tort
what is bringing onto the land
it is essential that D has actually brought some substance onto the land and that the substance in question is not one that is naturally occurring on the property
why does Giles v walker not apply
bc it is natural and wasn’t brought (thistle seeds)
why does Elisom v MoD 1997 not apply
bc its natural and cant be brought on the land (rain water)
what is the second element of this tort.
the substance is likely to do ‘mischief’ to escape
what case links to substance likely to do ‘mischief’
hale v jennings
why does hale v jennings doesn’t link
bc it was personal injury instead of property
what happened in hale v jennings
D operated a chair-o-plane roundabout at a fairground. one of the chair broke loose and hit the C
what was held for hale v jennings
held to amount to an escape for the purpose of Rylands v Fletchers. D was liable for personal injury sustained
what does it mean there must be an escape
foreseeability of the type of damage and not the escape itself referred to here
facts of Read v Lyons 1947
C was employed by D in their factory which mad explosives for the ministry of supply. during the course of her employment an explosion occurred which killed a man and injured others including C. evidence that negligence had caused the explosion, at trial the judge held the case was governed by the rule in Ryland v fletcher and liability was therefore strict
what was held for Read v Lyons
court of appeal reversed this decision as the rule in Ryland v Fletcher required an escape of the hazard mater. c appealed and the house of lords dismissed the appeal, for absence of any proof of negligence on behalf of the D or an escape of dangerous thing, there was no cause of action on which the C could succeed
what must the courts consider how the escape happened
release of the dangerous thing is accidental
intentional releases
what case links to nature of the escape
standards v Gore 2012
facts of standards v gore 2012
rules holds that a person who brings onto their land anything likely to cause mischief if it it escape must keep it in at their peril and is answerable for all damages that results from it escape
