Ryland v Fletcher Flashcards
Is there need for mens rea?
No
What are the 4 essential elements to the tort?
- the bringing on to the land and an accumulation or storage.
- of a thing that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes
- which amounts to a non-natural use of the land
- and which does escape and cause reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property
Who can make a claim?
Someone who has proprietary interest or owns/rents the land.
Who are potential defendants?
Read v Lyon’s (1974) made it clear the defendant is either the owner or occupier of land which satisfies the 4 elements
(1) What happens if the substance isn’t bought into the land and is instead naturally present? NAME A CASE
If it is natural, there isn’t any liability. This is shown in Giles v Walker (1890) in which the claimant tried to claim about weeds which didn’t amount to liability.
(2) How is the test of foreseeability applied?
It doesn’t have to be foreseeable that the thing will escape BUT it must be foreseeable that it would cause damage if it were to escape.
(2) Name things the courts have found to do mischief.
Gas, poisonous fumes, flag pole
What did the HoL say in the case of Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) in regards to personal injury?
Claimants cannot claim for personal injury.
(3) What is a non-natural use of the land?
Name a case.
An extraordinary or unusual use of land.
British Celanese v Hunt Ltd (1969)
The D had strips of metal used for manufacturing purposes. The metal flew off the land and into a electricity substation which caused a power failure. The D wasn’t found liable (even though the metal was stored poorly) as the use of land was natural to benefit the population.
(4) Name a case where the thing escaped and caused damage but WASN’T reasonably foreseeable.
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)
The D owned a leather tanning business which resulted in small spillages onto the floor. Over a long time, the spillages entered a borehole under the floor/soil which contaminated the water. The D wasn’t liable as the damage wasn’t reasonably foreseeable.
Is there a defence of consent?
Yes, consent to injury.
Peters v prince of Wales Theatre (1943)
The D’s shop flooded after the claimants sprinkler system burst due to icy weather. The D wasn’t liable as the claimant consented to the sprinkler system as it benefited them.
Explain the defence of an act of a stranger.
Name a case.
This is when the defendant had no control over a stranger who caused the escape of the thing that caused the damage.
Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956)
The D had an old coach on their land adjoining a wasteland. The claimant (young boy) threw a lit match into the petrol tank of the coach and caused an explosion. The D wasn’t liable as the result was purely due to the act of a third party.
Explain the defence of an act of God.
When their is extreme weather that human foresight cannot provide against.
Explain the contributory negligence defence.
When the claimant is partially responsible for the escape of the thing. The damages are reduced accordingly based on the level of fault of the claimant.
What is the main remedy?
Paying the cost of the repair or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed.
