Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

what is Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 1

where a person’s property is damaged or destroyed by the escape of non-naturally stored material onto adjoining property

Question 2

what did the HoL establish in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather?

Answer 2

identified this tort as a type of nuisance and subject to the same test of foreseeability

Question 3

what are the 4 elements that must be proved?

Answer 3

• the bringing onto the land and an accumulation (or storage)
• of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes
• which amounts to a non-natural use of the land and
• which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property

Question 4

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 4

all elements present and D liable. bringing water on land and storage of water, large volume which could damage if it escapes. it’s a non-natural use of land. water escaped and caused damage

Question 5

potential D?

Answer 5

Viscount Simon’s test in Read v Lyons, D will be owner or occupier of land who satisfies elements, D must have some control over land where material is stored

Question 6

bringing onto land?

Answer 6

there must be a bringing onto the land of a substance,

Question 7

if material is naturally present on land, can there be liability?

Answer 7

if naturally present, then no liability Giles v Walker (1890)
weeds spread to neighboring land

Question 8

can there be liability for something that naturally accumulates on land?

Answer 8

no, Ellison v Ministry of Defence

rainwater that accumulated naturally

Question 9

the thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes?

Answer 9

the thing D brings onto land must be likely to cause damage if it escapes, this is test of foreseeability (not the escape that has to be foreseeable but the damage )

Question 10

examples of things likely to cause mischeif?

Answer 10

• gas, electricity
• poisonous fumes
• flag pole
• chair from chair-o-plane (Hale v Jennings Bros)

Question 11

damage by fire?

Answer 11

Ltd v Styrene Packaging and instulation

accumulated things that were known fire risks

Question 12

Wyvern

Answer 12

damage by fire claims are rare as it is ‘thing’ that has to escape, not fire, starting fire may be ordinary use of land

Question 13

non-natural use of land?

Answer 13

refers to some unusual use of land

Question 14

what are some natural uses of land?

Answer 14

• fire in a grate that spread’s to C
• defective electric wiring that causes fire
• domestic water supply

Question 15

case for domestic water supply as natural part of land?

Answer 15

Rickards v Lothian

Question 16

British Celanese v A H Hunt

Answer 16

use of land is natural because of the benefit obtained by local population

Question 17

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (ignore)

Answer 17

storage of chemicals in factory is non natural use of land, regardless of benefit to local population

Question 18

Read v J Lyons &Co and ‘the thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage?

Answer 18

material has to escape from one property onto adjoining property, no escape means no liability

Question 19

Hale v Jennings Bros

Answer 19

‘thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage’ is not always strictly applied,
here, (chair o plane) stalls both operated on same land, neither stall holders owned the land yet liability was imposed

Question 20

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather and foreseeability

Answer 20

damage must be foreseeable (not escape), damage was not foreseeable and too remote from the site spillage

Question 21

what is the defence of statutory authority?

Answer 21

if terms of an Act of parliament authorise D’s actions, this may be a defence

Question 22

what is the defence of ‘an act of a stranger’?

Answer 22

if a stranger whom D has no control has been the cause of the escape causing the damage, then D may not be liable

perry v Kendricks transport transport

Question 23

what is the defence of ‘an act of god’?

Answer 23

defence may succeed where there are extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight can provide against’, unforeseeable weather conditions
nicholas v marsland

Question 24

what is the defence contributory negligence?

Answer 24

where C is partly responsible for the escape of the thing, the law reform act applies and damages may be reduced according to amount of C’s fault

Question 25

what is the defence of volenti non fit injuria (consent)?

Answer 25

no liability where C has consented to the thing that is accumulated by D