Ryland & Fletchers TORT Flashcards
What did it start as
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
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
what does mean by a non-natural use of land
the substance brought onto land must be an unnatural use of land that it to say, a use that is extraordinary or unusual
what the 3 element of Ryland v Fletcher
a non-natural use of land
what is deemed as unusual
it is not static concept but rather something that may change in time to reflect advance in tech, it accessibility and how this affect social change and practice
what case links to non-natural use of land
Rickards v Lothian 1913
facts pf Rickards v Lothian 1913
C ran a business from the second floor of a building. D owned the building and leased different parts to other business tenants. an unknown person had blocked all the sinks in the lavatory on the fourth floor and turned on all the taps in order to cause a flood. this damaged the C’s stick and the claimant brought an action based on the principle set out in Rylands v Fletcher
held for Rickards v Lothian 1913
Ds were not liable. the act which caused the damage was wrongful acts by the third party and there was no non-natural use of land
what is the fourth element of Ryland & Fletcher
the thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage
what does it mean by thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damages
essential that the substance in question escape property in order for action in rylands & fletcher to be successful
what case links to must escape and cause foreseeable damage
Read v Lyons 1946
what is the foreseeability of must escape and cause foreseen damage
substance brought onto the land must be likely to do damage if it escape and the damage must be reasonably foreseeable, rather than the escape
what are the four defences of Rylands v Fletcher
act of a stranger
act of god
statutory authority
consent
what’s an act of a stranger
the material escaped bc of an act of stranger over whom the defendant had no control
whats act of god
natural events like a earthquakes flood or other natural disaster which caused the material to escape, means the defendant would not be liable
what is statutory authority
there is permission given by the local authority for the storage of material
what is consent
the claimant was fully or partly at fault for the escape of the material
