Ryland v Fletcher

Question 1

Who defined RvF & what was stated

Answer 1

Lord Cranworth
This law includes those situations where there will still be a liability if something is put on land which may escape, no matter the amount of precautions taken

Question 2

What is RvF

Answer 2

Liability where even if all precautions have been taken/not negligent on their part

Question 3

EV 1 - liable where no negligence

Answer 3

• controversial, why hold someone liable when they have taken all precautions
• attempts to rid HoL refused
• restrictive approach
• however there are so many defences (4) where defence can escape liability such as, wrongful act of 3rd party (Rickards v Lothian),
  Statutory authority (Charing Cross)
  or consent (Peters v Prince of Wales)

Question 4

EV 2 - Restrictive

Answer 4

• Initially broad area and over time has become more and more restrictive
• Rickards v Lothian advice to use negligence instead of RvF, where shouldn’t it be easier to use ?
• Judicial precedent has made this tort hard to prove
• Alongside defences have made it harder and harder to prove e.g acts of God Nichols v Marsland
• Judges should just use practise statement to remove

Question 5

EV 3 - out of date

Answer 5

• initially put in place as of public importance
• reservoir claims no longer a major issue
• both Scotland (RHM bakeries v stathclyde regional council and Australia (both holding the same common law system) have removed this area of law and now seen under nuisance

Question 6

EV 4 - natural use of land

Answer 6

• simplest way to defeat claim is by showing use of land was natural (Rickards v Lothian)
• nowadays everything is considered a natural use such as tall building
• others may argue that such developments of the law are necessary in order to not open up the floodgates