Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
What are the 4 key things that must be proved for a successful claim under Rylands v Fletcher
Bringing onto a land and accumulating, of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes, which amounts to a non natural use of land, and which does escape and cause damage
True or false, if the thing in question is already on the land the defendant will still be liable
False, there cannot be any liability as the tort requires a bringing onto the land
What case showed the defendant was not liable as the thing that caused mischief was already on their land?
Giles v Walker
What does the case of Leakey v National Trust show?
The D can be liable if they have not brought the thing onto the land but they were aware of its accumulation and did nothing to stop it
What is meant by a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes?
Must mean that the thing is likely to cause damage, however the escape itself does not have to be likely
Give an example of a case and what was decided to likely cause mischief
Shiffman, flagpole or Rylands v Fletcher, water
What is meant by a non-natural use of land?
some special use bringing with it increased danger to others (Rickards v Lothian)
What case shows if the use provides a benefit to the public it will be classed as a natural use?
British Celanese v Hunt
What case shows the mischief did not escape?
Read v Lyons
Who is the potential defendant?
owner of the land, the occupier or the escape came from circumstances that they had control over
Who are the potential claimants?
May need to have a proprietary interest (Weller v Foot & Mouth Disease Institute)
What must the resultant damage be in Rylands v Fletcher?
Must be foreseeable at the time of accumulation and must not be personal injury
What case shows damage was not foreseeable?
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
What is meant by Volenti and what case shows this?
Where premises have multiple occupants and the thing accumulated is for common benefit of the occupants (Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre)
What is meant by act of a stranger and what case shows this?
If a stranger the D cannot control was the reason for the escape they will not be liable (Rickards v Lothian)
