rylands and fletcher

Question 1

what is the definition of Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 1

d brought something onto land and accumulated it there that is something likely to cause mischief if it escapes which is a non-natural use of the land, which then it does escape it causes reasonably foreseeable damage to c’s property

Question 2

what happens in the ryland v fletcher case
(dont need to know for exam)

Answer 2

Wanted to build reservoir. Previously built ancient shafts, engineer saw this and didn’t warn Rylands

When being build, shaft collapsed, water escaped

Rylands liable

Question 3

who are the two parties involved

Answer 3

claimant and defendant

Question 4

who would be classed as the claimant

Answer 4

 must have been an ‘interest’ in the land- meaning a legal interest so own it or tenants

Question 5

whats the case to back this

Answer 5

hunter v canary wharf
large was very close to the television transmitter of the BBC, which is located in Crystal Palace. As a result, the tower interfered with the television reception of a group of residents

Question 6

who would be classed as the defendant

Answer 6

he person who brought the dangerous thing onto the land- the accumulator

Question 7

whats the case to back this

Answer 7

read v lyons

Question 8

what happened in this case

Answer 8

explosion at work

Question 9

what are the 5 requirements (think definition)

Answer 9

d brought something onto land and accumulated it there

something likely to cause mischief if it escapes

which is a non-natural use of the land

which then it does escape

and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to c’s property

Question 10

D had brought something onto land and accumulated it meaning

Answer 10

D must have brought something not naturally occurring onto the land

Question 11

what cases back this

Answer 11

Giles v Walker 1890
Ellison v MOD 1997

Question 12

what happened in Giles v Walker 1890

Answer 12

seeds blew onto c’s land causing weeds to grow

not liable as it natural

Question 13

what happened in Ellison v MOD 1997

Answer 13

rainwater accumulated on ds land causing flood on cs land

Outcome: not liable as it natural

If rainwater causes something else to spill then d can be responsible

Question 14

Something likely to cause mischief if it escapes meaning

Answer 14

It is not the ESCAPE that needs to be foreseeable – only that IF it escapes, it is foreseeable that it WILL cause damage.

Question 15

what does this include

Answer 15

gas and electricity

flag poles

yew tree branches

a chair on a fairground ride

flammable materials in dangerous quantities

Question 16

gas and electricity case

Answer 16

(hillier v air ministry)

Question 17

flag poles case

Answer 17

(Shiffman v grand priory of st john)
flagpole fell and hit c

Question 18

Yew tree branches case

Answer 18

(Crowhurst v Amersham burial board)
branches grew to the point that they reached over the fence so leaves of the tree able to fall on the claimant’s property where the claimant’s horse ate them and died

Question 19

A chair on a fairground ride case

Answer 19

(hale v Jennings bros)
chairs broke loose and hit the claimant and the defendant was liable

Question 20

Flammable materials in dangerous quantities case

Answer 20

(mason v levy)
store of machinery in inflammable packings, a neighbour claimed from fire damage.

Question 21

what does it not include

Answer 21

Fire from a natural use of land

Question 22

what case backs this

Answer 22

(stannard v gore)
electrical fault on ds land which caused a fire

Question 23

Non-Natural use of the land meaning

Answer 23

This is no longer just about what is ‘natural’ but also includes what could be considered an ‘ordinary’ use of D’s land.

Question 24

what are the 4 rules to come out of this

Answer 24

'’extraordinary and unusual considering the time and place’’

Something that is a ‘‘potentially dangerous activity’’ of has an ‘‘increased risk to others’’ will also be classed as non-natural use of land

If things are stored in ‘‘dangerously high quantities’’ then this can be classed as an non- natural use of land

If the public derive a benefit from such a use of land, then it may be seen as a natural use- but this needs to be balanced against other factors (e.g dangerousness)

Question 25

'’extraordinary and unusual considering the time and place’’ case

Answer 25

Transco v Stockport

water pipe had been leaking and had saturated at the embankment where the Claimant’s gas pipe was. The embankment eventually collapsed so gas pipe was left unsupported so needed work done to it. The council (d) was not liable

Question 26

Something that is a ‘‘potentially dangerous activity’’ of has an ‘‘increased risk to others’’ will also be classed as non-natural use of land case (think second requirement case)

Answer 26

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather 1994
gradual spillage of solvent from d’s factory which seeped into soil below and eventually poisoned water supply used by c

Question 27

If things are stored in ‘‘dangerously high quantities’’ then this can be classed as an non- natural use of land case

Answer 27

Mason v Levy
store of machinery in inflammable packings, a neighbour claimed from fire damage.

Question 28

If the public derive a benefit from such a use of land, then it may be seen as a natural use- but this needs to be balanced against other factors (e.g dangerousness) case

Answer 28

British Celanese v Hunt 1969
Metal foil had been blown from the defendant’s factory premises on to an electricity sub-station, which in turn brought cs machines to a halt.

Question 29

he thing DOES escape meaning

Answer 29

Something needs to actually escape from D’s land – else there is no case.

Question 30

what case backs this

Answer 30

Ponting v Noakes
c’s horse died when it reached over the fence to eat yew tree leaves on d’s land. Not liable as nothing had escaped off D’s land

Question 31

what does read v lyons

Answer 31

must be an escape from a place where the defendant has control to a place which is outside his control

Question 32

what does British Celanese v Hunt tell us

Question 33

And causes Reasonably Foreseeable damage to Property meaning

Answer 33

The damage must be reasonably foreseeable – so it cannot be too remote from the escape.

Question 34

what are the 3 rules that come from this

Answer 34

damage no longer includes personal injury

damage also does not include financial loss – so only property damage is recoverable

includes economic loss

Question 35

damage no longer includes personal injury case (think 2nd requirement cases)

Answer 35

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather 1994
gradual spillage of solvent from d’s factory which seeped into soil below and eventually poisoned water supply used by c

Question 36

damage also does not include financial loss – so only property damage is recoverable

Answer 36

Transco v Stockport 2003