Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

facts of RvF (1868)

Answer 1

• claimant (F) was tenant and operated a coliery
• D operated a mill nearby
• D employed independent contractors to develop a resevoir for the mill
• contractors discovered some shafts under resevoir but neglgiently failed to address them
• resevoir busrst downwards and C’s colliery was flooded
• Ds were held to not be negligent
• Ds held liable for strict liability
• “the person who of his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to cause mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril”

Question 2

Exceptions to strict liability of R v F

Answer 2

“he can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff’s default or perhaps that the escape was the consequence vis major, or the act of God”

Question 3

Restriction to strict liability set by HL

Answer 3

-for the principle to apply, there has to be a non-natural use of land

Question 4

Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003)

Answer 4

• British gas owned gas on disused railway embankment owned by council
• council had block of flats nearby
• service pipe carrying eater under the flat burst and water affected the gas
• sued council under RvF
• CA held it was an ordinary use of land
• RvF claim failed

Question 5

reformulation of RvF rule in Transco, by Lord Bingham

Answer 5

“an occupier of land who can show that another occupier of land has brought or kept on his land an exceptionally dangerous or michevious thing in extraordinary or unusual circumstances is in my opinion entitled to recover compensation”

Question 6

Requirements for RvF

Answer 6

• Cs must have an interest in land
• D must keep things on his land likely to cause mischief if they escape
• there must be an escape onto C’s land

Question 7

Reed v J Lyons (1947)

Answer 7

• C was employed by govt to inspect D’s munitions factory
• injured by explosion of shell being developed @ factory
• Ds were not held liable
• “there must be an escape from a place where the defendant has occupation an or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control” (viscount simon)

Question 8

Test for reasonable forseeability stated by Lord Goff

Answer 8

“if the PCE (chemical) escapes, could it indeed cause damage”

-if on the facts neither the escape of the chemical or possibility of damage are forseeable liability isnt established

Question 9

What damages are recoverable?

Answer 9

• damage to the land
• consequential losses from damage to the land
• NO personal injuries

Question 10

Definition of non-natural user in Rickards v Lothian (1913)

Answer 10

“it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community”

Question 11

Recognised defenses

Answer 11

• consent of the claimant (claimant expressly/impliedly consented to presence of source of danger)
• unforeseeable act of a stranger
• Act of god
• defense of statutory authority
• contributory negligence