Rylands v Flecher

Question 1

Definition :

Answer 1

A persons property is damaged or destroyed by the escape of non - naturally stored material onto another property

Question 2

Is it a strict liability tort

Answer 2

Yes, no requiremenrs to show fault. the D can be liable even if they have taken care to avoid the escape

Question 3

The 5 elements to prove are :

Answer 3

1. The legal position of the party
2. bringing ‘dangerous substance’ onto land
3. accumilation of something likley to do mischeif if escapes.
4. which amounts to a non natural use of land
5. which does escape and causes forseeable damage

Question 4

1. parties to an action

Answer 4

Potential claimants: interest in property, own it, rent it, property interest
Potential defendant: owner or occupier, satisfies elements of tort, control of land where material is stored

Question 5

2. Bringing onto the land

Answer 5

There must be bringing onto the land of a dangerous substance. If substance is naturally present there can be no liability. If naturally accumilates, no liability.
E.G ( Ellison v MOD ) No liability when rainwater accumilated naturally

Question 6

3. The thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes

Answer 6

The thing the D brings onto the land must be likely to cause damage if it escapes. This is a test of forseeability. However, it is not the escape that is forseeable it is the damage. E.g flying chair (Hale v Jennings Bros)
Ex. gas/electric, poisonous fumes, tree branch, flag pole

Question 7

Recent fire damage cases

Answer 7

LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd.
Accumilated things known as a fire risk next to hotwire cutting machines making ignition more likley
Stannard v Gore.
storing tires isnt dangerous and the fire escaped not the tires

Question 8

4. Non Natural use of land

Answer 8

Domestic water supply is natural use (Rickards v Lothian)