Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
What is RvF
A strict liability tort, where a persons property is damaged or destroyed by the escape of a non-naturally stored material onto adjoining property
What are the four essential elements for RvF
- 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
What happened in the case of Rylands v fletcher
D Owned a mill, hired contractors to create a reservoir on his land to act as a water supply for his mill. Contractors negligently failed to block off disused mineshafts that they came across. Unknown to contractors the shafts were connected to other mine works on adjoining land. When the reservoir was filled it flooded other neighbouring mines
Who are the parties involved RvF
- Claimant = anyone who has interest in the land affected (owner or some proprietary interest in the land)
- Defendants= according to Read v Lyons , owner or occupier who has some control over the land
The bringing onto the land RvF
Giles v Walker= non-natural substance, weeds do not count. Cannot be liability for a ting that naturally accumulates on the land
case summary= seeds from thistles blew onto Cs land resulting in weed growth damaging Cs crops.
The thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes
Test of foreseeability. The escape doesn’t need to be foreseeable but only the damage if the thing brought onto the land escapes
examples:
- gas and electricity
- poisonous fumes
- tree branches
Cambridge water v eastern counties leather
LSM international v Syrene packaging
A fire started in Ds factory which contained large amounts of flammable material. Fire spread to Cs adjoining property causing damage. D was held liable as they had accumulated things which were a known fire risk. The flammable material was stored next to hot wire cutting machines making the ignition more likely.
The storage represented a recognisable risk to C and a non-natural use of the land. D was liable
Wyvern v Gore
Fire moving to a claimants property can result in a RvF claim however it is rare because
- it is the ‘thing’ that has been brought onto the land which must escape not the fire which started or increased because of the ‘thing’
- cases involving fire may be limited to cases where the defence at deliberately or negligently started by the occupier or one for whom he is responsible for
- in any event starting a fire on ones land may well be an ordinary use of the land
A non-natural use of the land
‘it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and not merely by the ordinary use of the land
- Rickards v Lothian
Non- natural use of the land general rule
The storage must be for something extraordinarily unnatural or some unusual use of the land.
Things for domestic use are not usually classified as non-natural
Act of a stranger
Perry v Kendricks
stranger removed petrol cap and a child was injured after their friend threw a match into the tank
Read v Lyons and Co
‘an escape from a place where D has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control’
Defences - volenti non fit injuria (consent)
There will be no liability where the claimant has consented to the thing that is accumulated by the defendant
Defence- act of a stranger
Perry v Kendricks = stranger opened petrol cap and kid was injured after friend threw a match into it
Defence- Act of god
may succeed where there are extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight can provide against’. It is only likely to succeed if there are unforeseeable weather conditions
Nichols v Marsland = freak torrential rain and thunderstorms lead to damage on Cs land however no liability due to the weather conditions being SO extreme
