Rylands V Fletcher Flashcards
What is the introduction to Rylands and Fletcher?
A strict liability tort was developed in the case of Rydens V Fletcher 1868. This means the claimant only needs to prove they did the act not the intention.
What are the four elements that needed to be proven in a Rylands V Fletcher case for it to be successful
The bringing onto the land and an accumulation
Of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes
Which amounts to in non-natural use of land
Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage that is not too remote to the adjoining property
What was the held in the Ryland versus Fletcher case?
A claim could be made if material was bought onto the land and stored it was likely to cause mischief if it escapes, which amounted to a non-natural use of the land on which escaped and cause reasonably for damage there for the defendant liable
What parties are involved in Rylands V Fletcher?
The claim must have an interest in the land affected, e.g. own it rent it or had some sort of proprietary interest (Transco)
The defendant will either be the owner occupier of the land. It is assumed that the defendant must have some sort of control over the land on which the material is stored ( Read v Lyons)
What is the definition + case of Bringing onto the land and an accumulation
- there must be a bringing onto the land of a substance
- If it’s naturally present on the land such as weeds it’s not an accumulation (Gilens V Walker)
- it cannot naturally accumulate on the land eg rainwater ( Ellison V Ministry)
What is the definition and case of The thing is likely to cause mischief (damage) if it escapes.🎡💪🏽
• The thing which D brings onto the land must likely cause damage if it escapes
• The damage must be foreseeable if the thing escapes
• If the thing doesn’t escape off the D land there is no claim
Hale V Jennings Bro held - The owner of the ride was liable as the risk of injury was foreseeable if the chair become lose
What is the definition + case of A non natural use of the land
• Ryland’s was originally a strict liability but it was limited with the additional requirement of non-natural use of the land by Lord Cairns
•case law suggests that non natural refers to some extraordinary or unusual use of land
•In general storage of things associated with the domestic use of land will not normally be classified as non natural even if there hazardous eg however a defective electric wiring that causes a fire and domestic water supply have been accepted as a natural use of land.
Richard V Lothian held- D was not liable as the use of water in domestic pipes was a natural use of land
If the public have a benefit from the use of land then the court may found the the use to be natural
British Celanese V A H Hunt LTD
The court held that the use was natural because of the benefit obtained by the local population
However the courts are prepared to accept that certain activities may always be a nonnatural use of land despite benefiting the public due to the level of danger involved
• In Cambridge Water Co V Eastern Countries Leather plc - the storage of chemicals was classed as a non natural use of land despite the factory being an important source of local employment
Examples of non-natural and natural use of land
Non natural - tyres in a persons garden
Natural - tyres in a persons garage / shop
What was held in Transco V Stockport MBC 2003?
Should use in AO1 + AO2
Personal injury is now not included under Rylands V Fletcher since Transco V Stockport MBC
What is the definition and case for The thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage it must not be too remote?
1a) escape
• The stored item item must escape from the defendants property to the claimants adjoining property
Pointing V Noakes held - defendant was not liable as the tree was entirely in the confines of the defendants land, and had there had been no escape.
• if it’s just a byproduct of the things stored escape rather than the thing itself, this element is not fulfilled.
For example, if smoke escapes rather than at the fire its self, then there will be no claim under Rylands V Fletcher 1868
Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) V Gore held - the court of appeal stated it was not possible for there to be a Rylands claim here, because it was the fire which escaped not the tires.
Also storing the tires in a light. Industrial estate was not a non-natural use of land.
This case now means that it you will now be very difficult for claimant to succeed in a fire clean without proof of negligence. For example, the fire was started carelessly.
Read V Lyon’s held - D was not liable as there was no non-natural use of land, no escape of a dangerous thing involved and personal injury is not actionable
What is the CASE for The thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage it must not be too remote?
Cambridge Water Co V Eastern Countries Leather held - the House of Lords decided that the damage was not reasonably foreseeable and to remote from the site of the spillage
List the defences
Volenti non fit injuria
Contributory negligence
act of a stranger
act of God
statutory authority
common benefit
What is the definition for consent and contributory negligence?
Volenti non fit injuria - there will be no liability we’re the claimant has consented to the thing that is stored by the defendant
Contributory negligence - where the claimant is partly responsible for the escape of the thing that the law reform contributory negligence act 1945 applies and damages may be reduced according to the amount of the claimant fault.
What is the definition and case for act of stranger and act of god?
If a stranger who is the defendant has no control has been the cause of the escape which has causes the damage then the defendant may not be liable as in ( Perry v Kendrick’s Transport ltd)
This defence will succeed were there are extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight can provide against’. It is only likely to succeed if there are unforeseeable weather conditions (Greenock Corporation V Caledonian)
What is the definition and case of statutory authority and common benefit?
If the terms of an act of parliament authorise the defendants actions, this me amount to a defence
If the source of the danger was maintained for the benefit of both the claimant and defendant, the defendant will not be liable for its escape. ( Dunne V North West Gas Board)
