Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

Part 1

Answer 1

this rule is used when something from a neighbouring property damages, or destroys property by the escape of a non-naturally stored material onto an adjoining property

Question 2

Part 1.2

Answer 2

In RvF D built reservoir which leaked into an abandoned mine which was attached to C’s mine. The water leaked from the abandoned mine into the used one forcing it to close

Question 3

Part 2

Answer 3

Firstly it must be proven that there are parties to an action. The d will either be an occupier or owner of the land as in Read v lyons. The C must also have an interest in the damaged land as in smith v scott

Question 4

Part 3

Answer 4

There are 4 requirements that must be fulfilled

Question 5

Part 3.1

Answer 5

There must be a bringing onto the land (accumulation). If the thing is already present on the land, there can be no liability (giles v walker). and if it naturally accumulates there can be no liability (ellison v mod)

Question 6

Part 3.2

Answer 6

second, the thing must be likely to cause mischief if it escapes (foreseeability test). Its not the escape that must be foreseeable but the damage once the thing has escaped must be foreseeable as in Hale v Jenning bros

Question 7

3.3

Answer 7

Thirdly, there must be a non natural use of land as in Rickards v lothian

Question 8

3.4

Answer 8

finally, the thing must escape and cause reasonably foreseeable damage. If the thing did not move from one property to another there can be no liability (read v lyons). The damage to the joining property must be reasonably foreseeable (cambridge water co)