Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

C may have an action in the tort of

Answer 1

Rylands v Fletcher. It concerns the escape of a dangerous thing

Question 2

It is a

Answer 2

strict liability tort, so the defendant could still be liable even if they tried to prevent the escape or did not know about.

Question 3

Here D could still be liable

Answer 3

even though

Question 4

C has a

Answer 4

proprietary interest in the land affected because C… as in Hunter v Canary Wharf.

Question 5

D is the

Answer 5

occupier (or accumulator) of the land that the dangerous thing accumulated on because D… as in Read v Lyons.

Question 6

The tort of Rylands v Fletcher was defined by

Answer 6

Blackburn J: “anyone who brings onto his land and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes, is answerable for all damage which is a natural consequence of its escape” The 2004 case of Transco v Stockport MBC has developed the tort further.

Question 7

C must show certain

Answer 7

factors

Question 8

The thing must be

Answer 8

brought and accumulated on D’s land, as in Giles v Walker.

Question 9

The thing that accumulates must be the thing that

Answer 9

escapes, as in Stannard v Gore.

Question 10

Although the thing does not need to be inherently

Answer 10

dangerous, as Rylands v Fletcher, the thing must be likely to do mischief (damage) if it escapes, as in Hale V Jennings.

Question 11

Damage must be

Answer 11

caused, and the damage must be reasonably foreseeable, as in Cambridge Water v EC Leather.

Question 12

The thing must

Answer 12

escape from the defendant’s land over which they have control, as in Read v Lyons, or escape from circumstances over which they have control, as in Hale v Jennings.

Question 13

There must be a

Answer 13

non-natural use of land, which means it is (a) ‘extraordinary and unusual considering time and place’, rather than ‘truly domestic use’, as in Transco v Stockport. It must be (b) potentially dangerous, as in Cambridge Water v EC Leather. It is likely to involve (c) things stored in large quantities, as in Mason v Levy.

Question 14

The defence of ACT GOD

Answer 14

arises where the thing escaped due to unforeseeable extreme weather conditions, set out in Nichols v Marsland.

Question 15

The defence of COMMON BENEFIT

Answer 15

where the dangerous thing has been accumulated by the defendant for either common benefit of both the defendant and claimant, or just the benefit of the claimant, as in Dunne v North West Gas.

Question 16

The defence of ACT OF STRANGER

Answer 16

arises where the thing escaped because of the actions of someone over which the defendant had no control, as in Perry v Kendricks.

Question 17

The defence of STATUTORY AUTHORITY

Answer 17

arises where the thing was brought onto the land and accumulated under the authority of law/statute, set out in Charing Cross Electricity v Hydraulic Power.

Question 18

The defence of VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

Answer 18

arises where the claimant consents to the risk of damage when they fully understand the nature of the risk rather just being aware of its existence, and exercised free choice, as in Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre.