rylands and fletcher Flashcards
what is the definition of Rylands v Fletcher
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
who are the two parties involved
claimant and defendant
who would be classed as the claimant
must have been an ‘interest’ in the land- meaning a legal interest so own it or tenants
whats the case to back this
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
who would be classed as the defendant
he person who brought the dangerous thing onto the land- the accumulator
whats the case to back this
read v lyons
explosion at work
what are the 5 requirements (think definition)
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
D had brought something onto land and accumulated it meaning
D must have brought something not naturally occurring onto the land
what cases back this
Giles v Walker 1890
Ellison v MOD 1997
what happened in Giles v Walker 1890
seeds blew onto c’s land causing weeds to grow
not liable as it natural
what happened in Ellison v MOD 1997
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
Something likely to cause mischief if it escapes meaning
It is not the ESCAPE that needs to be foreseeable – only that IF it escapes, it is foreseeable that it WILL cause damage.
what does this include
gas and electricity
flag poles
yew tree branches
a chair on a fairground ride
flammable materials in dangerous quantities
gas and electricity case
(hillier v air ministry)
flag poles case
(Shiffman v grand priory of st john)
flagpole fell and hit c
Yew tree branches case
(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
A chair on a fairground ride case
(hale v Jennings bros)
chairs broke loose and hit the claimant and the defendant was liable
Flammable materials in dangerous quantities case
(mason v levy)
store of machinery in inflammable packings, a neighbour claimed from fire damage.
what does it not include
Fire from a natural use of land
what case backs this
(stannard v gore)
electrical fault on ds land which caused a fire
Non-Natural use of the land meaning
This is no longer just about what is ‘natural’ but also includes what could be considered an ‘ordinary’ use of D’s land.
what are the 4 rules to come out of this
'’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)
'’extraordinary and unusual considering the time and place’’ case
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
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)
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
If things are stored in ‘‘dangerously high quantities’’ then this can be classed as an non- natural use of land case
Mason v Levy
store of machinery in inflammable packings, a neighbour claimed from fire damage.
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
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.
he thing DOES escape meaning
Something needs to actually escape from D’s land – else there is no case.
what case backs this
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
what does read v lyons
must be an escape from a place where the defendant has control to a place which is outside his control
what does British Celanese v Hunt tell us
The escape can be from a land over which the d has control (however, this was a natural use of land in an industrial estate)
And causes Reasonably Foreseeable damage to Property meaning
The damage must be reasonably foreseeable – so it cannot be too remote from the escape.
what are the 4 rules that come from this
damage no longer includes personal injury
damage also does not include financial loss – so only property damage is recovered
future economic loss not included
damage no longer includes personal injury case (think 2nd requirement cases)
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
damage also does not include financial loss – so only property damage is recoverable
Transco v Stockport 2003
what are the 5 defences
act of a stranger
act of God
statutory authority
contributory negligence
consent
act of a stranger case
box v jubb
act of God case
Nichols v Marsland 1876
statutory authority case
Smeaton v Ilford Corp 1954
contribruty negligence case
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre 1943
consent case
Smith v Baker
future econ loss not included case
Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute 1996
