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

who are the two parties involved

Answer 2

claimant and defendant

Question 3

who would be classed as the claimant

Answer 3

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

Question 4

whats the case to back this

Answer 4

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 5

who would be classed as the defendant

Answer 5

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

Question 6

whats the case to back this

Answer 6

read v lyons
explosion at work

Question 7

what are the 5 requirements (think definition)

Answer 7

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 8

D had brought something onto land and accumulated it meaning

Answer 8

D must have brought something not naturally occurring onto the land

Question 9

what cases back this

Answer 9

Giles v Walker 1890
Ellison v MOD 1997

Question 10

what happened in Giles v Walker 1890

Answer 10

seeds blew onto c’s land causing weeds to grow

not liable as it natural

Question 11

what happened in Ellison v MOD 1997

Answer 11

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 12

Something likely to cause mischief if it escapes meaning

Answer 12

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

Question 13

what does this include

Answer 13

gas and electricity

flag poles

yew tree branches

a chair on a fairground ride

flammable materials in dangerous quantities

Question 14

gas and electricity case

Answer 14

(hillier v air ministry)

Question 15

flag poles case

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Yew tree branches case

Answer 16

(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 17

A chair on a fairground ride case

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Flammable materials in dangerous quantities case

Answer 18

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

Question 19

what does it not include

Answer 19

Fire from a natural use of land

Question 20

what case backs this

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Non-Natural use of the land meaning

Answer 21

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

Question 22

what are the 4 rules to come out of this

Answer 22

'’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 23

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

Answer 23

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 24

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 24

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 25

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

Answer 25

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

Question 26

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 26

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 27

he thing DOES escape meaning

Answer 27

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

Question 28

what case backs this

Answer 28

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 29

what does read v lyons

Answer 29

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

Question 30

what does British Celanese v Hunt tell us

Answer 30

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)

Question 31

And causes Reasonably Foreseeable damage to Property meaning

Answer 31

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

Question 32

what are the 4 rules that come from this

Answer 32

damage no longer includes personal injury

damage also does not include financial loss – so only property damage is recovered
future economic loss not included

Question 33

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

Answer 33

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 34

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

Answer 34

Transco v Stockport 2003

Question 35

what are the 5 defences

Answer 35

act of a stranger
act of God
statutory authority
contributory negligence
consent

Question 36

act of a stranger case

Answer 36

box v jubb

Question 37

act of God case

Answer 37

Nichols v Marsland 1876

Question 38

statutory authority case

Answer 38

Smeaton v Ilford Corp 1954

Question 39

contribruty negligence case

Answer 39

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre 1943

Question 40

consent case

Answer 40

Smith v Baker

Question 41

future econ loss not included case

Answer 41

Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute 1996