rylands v fletcher Flashcards
what is a famous quote describing the rules of ryland v flecther
a person who ‘brings on his land and keeps there anything that is likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is a natural consequence of its escape’
who added what to the initial definition of rylands v fletcher
lord cairns added that the thing that is brought onto the land must amount to non-natural
what did the house of lords identify the tort of rylands v fletcher and what does this mean
a type of nuisance, meaning that its subject to the same test of foreseeability
what is the case for rylands and fletcher involving a tannery
Cambridge water co. C was a water company and D was a tannery. the chemicals used by the tannery seeped into the water supply, contaminating it. The HOL said that the storage of chemicals was a classic example of a non natural use of land, it did not matter that the tannery was a large source of employment in the local area.
what is the most important case involving a mill
rylands v fletcher (1868), the defendant owned a mill and hired contractors to build a resevoir on his land to supply water to the mill. When the resevoir was filled, mine works on ajoining land that hadnt been blocked off flooded. The HOL said that all elements of the tort were satisfied. The large volume of water was not naturally present and could obviously do damage if it escaped.
what are the 4 elements of the tort established in rylands v fletcher
- a brinign onto the land and accumulating
- a thing that is likely to cause damage if it escapes
- that amounts to a non natural use of land
- and does escape, causing damage.
whcih case established who the claimant can be
lyons said the claimant can be the owner or occupier of the land.
why is it difficult to identify whether someone can be a claimant under rylands and fletcher
case of lyons stated that the claimant must have proprietary interest in the land wheras case of British Celanese felt this was too restrictive and more people should be able to claim
what is a case for bringing onto the land
giles, involved a claim over weeds spreading onto neighbouring land. there was no liability because the weeds were naturally present and had not been brought on
what is the case that proves that the thing brought and accumulated on the land does not need to be the thing that escapes and causes mischief
miles, d had brought explosives onto their land where there was already an accumulation of rocks, causing the claimant to be injured when rock flew onto the highway. although the explosives were not the thing that escaped there was still liability.
what is a case for likely to cause mischief if it escapes
shiffman, a flagpole escaped and caused damage. proved that the thing does not have to be inherently dangerous, it is still valid if it becomes dangerous once it escapes
what is the case for damage has to be foreseeable
hale, d owned a ‘chair-o-plane’ ride when one of the chairs came lose, injuring someone below. the owner of the ride was liable become risk of injury was foreseeable
what is the important stockport case
Transco, the council was responsible for a high pressure waterpipe that leaked and cuased an embankment to collapse, exposing C’s gas pipeline and leaving it in a dangerous condition. HOL held that there was no accumulation of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escaped. the tort only applied where the defendants use of land is extraordinary or unusual.
what is the case involving people escaping
AG, travellers were camping on d’s land. they tresspassed to neighbours land and caused damage. it as deemed that the gypsies were ‘likely to cause mischief if they escaped’
what case developed the definition of a non natural use of land
lothian, ‘it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others.’
