Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
Introduction?
This is a strict liability tort developed in the case of Rylands v Fletcher and added to by the case of Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties. There are 4 main elements to prove in order to be successful in a claim of tort under the Rylands v Fletcher principle. The bringing onto the land and an accumulation, 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.
Claimant?
Transco v Stockport - Must have an interest in the land.
Defendant?
Read v Lyons - The D is someone who satisfies all the elements of the Rylands v Fletcher test, it’s thought to be someone who has control over the land.
1) The Bringing onto the land and an accumulation?
There must be a substance brought onto the land.
Giles and Walker - held that weeds that were naturally growing on the land they were not brought on so therefore, no liability.
2) Of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes: Definition?
The thing the D brings onto the land must be likely to do damage if it escapes, this is a test of foreseeability, it is the damage not the escape that must be foreseeable.
2) Of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes: Examples?
Hail v Jennings - a “Chair o-plane” car.
LMS International v Styrene - Fire.
3) Which amounts to a non natural use of the land: Rylands v Fletcher?
The Mischief must be a non-natural use of the land.
3) Which amounts to a non natural use of the land: special usage?
Rickards v Lothian - It must be some special usage that brings danger to others and is not for the general benefit of the community.
3) Which amounts to a non natural use of the land: Large Quantities?
Mason v Levy - Things stored in large quantities is a non natural use of the land.
3) Which amounts to a non natural use of the land: Is not a non natural use of land?
Domestic Water Supply, fire in a grate and defective electric wiring have all been held to be natural uses of land and not achieving the 3rd section of the Rylands v Fletcher Tort.
3) Which amounts to a non natural use of the land: public
British Celanese v Hunt - If the public derive a benefit, from the use of land that is in question then the court may find the use to be natural.
4) Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to the adjoining property: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather?
Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property.
4) Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to the adjoining property: Escape - munitions?
The thing must escape.
Read v Lyons - an explosion in a munitions factory was not an escape therefore, no claim.
4) Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to the adjoining property: Escape - Wyvern?
It was the fire that escaped and not the stored tires so no claim.
4) Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to the adjoining property: Reasonably foreseeable damage?
The thing that escapes must do reasonably foreseeable damage to the adjoining property, CAUSATION and REMOTENESS.
Defences: Contributory Negligence?
1945 Law Reform - Any damages awarded to the claimant can be reduced according to the extent to which the claimant had contributed to his own harm.
Sayers v Harlow Council - The amount of blame will be decided by the judge who will then adjust the damages awarded.
Defences: Consent?
A) Sterner v Lawson - C had knowledge of the risk involved.
B) Smith v Baker - Free will of the claimant.
C) A voluntary acceptance of the risk by the claimant.
Defences: Act of a Stranger?
Perry v Kendricks Transport - If a stranger who the D has no control over there will be no claim.
Defences: Act of God?
Nichols v Marsland - The defence may succeed where there are extreme weather conditions that no human can foresee.
Defences: Statutory Authority?
If an act of Parliament allows the D actions then a defence will be allowed.
Defences: Common Benefit?
Dunne v North West Gas Board - If there is a common benefit to the actions of the D then a defence may be allowed.
Remedy?
The Owner of the land close to the escape can recover damages for physical harm on the land itself and to other property affected by the escape.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties - Claims are unlikely to be permitted for personal injury.
