Rylands V Fletcher Flashcards
The tort from Ryland V Fletcher will allow liability in a case where?
The D has brought and stored materials on his land this escapes and causes damage to the neighbours land
What is the principle of Rylands v Flectcher (1868)?
The Judge set 4 elements for a successful claim:
-The bringing onto land
-And accumulation of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes
-which amounts to a non-natural use of land
-it escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to the neighbouring property
Who is the claimant?
A person who has an interest in the land affected, so either own or rent it
Who is the defendant?
The owner or the occupier of the land, must have some control over the land upon which the material is stored
What is the principle in British Celanese v Hunt?
The strips of foil escaped from the factory which was under the D’s control
What is the thing that escaped must be brought onto the land, by definition?
The defendant must bring the thing onto their land and it must accumulate there, if the thing is naturally present there can be no liability.
What is the principle for Giles v Walker?
There was no liability as the thing was naturally growing and naturally accumulated on the D’s land, as stated
What must be shown to demonstrate a non-natural use of the land?
That the storage or accumulation of the thing or substance amount to a non-natural use of the land. If the storage is considered to be a natural use of the land then the defendant will not be liable, where things are stored in large quantities this initially can be seen as a non - natural use
What was the principle in Mason v Levy Autoparts?
The storage of large quantities of combustible materials in the neighbourhood was a non natural use of land
What was the principle in Transco v Stockport?
Rylands v Fletcher would only be available if the use of land was out of the ordinary, it is irrelevant whether this is a public benefit or not
What did the courts decided about the storage of things associated with domestic use of land?
It will not be classified as a non-natural use of the land
What was the principle in Rickards v Lothiam?
The D wasn’t liable as the water in domestic pipes was a natural use of land
What must be proven about foreseeability?
That the D could foresee that harm could be caused by the escaped substance or thing
What was the principle in Cambridge Water Co?
The HofL held the Ds were not liable as the damages was too remote, they didn’t foresee that chemicals would contaminate the water
What is the definition of the thing that escaped caused the damage?
It must be proven that the thing brought onto the land has actually escaped and caused the damage or harm, the claimant can only claim for financial damage or damage to property
