Rylands V Fletcher

Question 1

What are 3 key points about R v F?

Answer 1

-Type of tort
-Relates to land
-Strict liability tort

Question 2

Where did it come from?

Answer 2

-Case of Roland’s v Fletcher
-bc of the Industrial Revolution, more land developed for industrial use so other land at risk of damage by dangerous substances
-tried to impose SL on owners as they used land for profit
-neighbour shouldn’t have to fix the damage bc of substances escaping
-can sue even if can’t prove the industrialist’s fault

Question 3

How has the strictness of liability changed?

Answer 3

-Diluted, Cambridge water v eastern counties leather, HL said type of nuisance and same test of foreseeability

Question 4

Rylands v Fletcher case

Answer 4

-D mill owner, contractors to create reservoir to give water supply to mill. Contractors negligently failed to block off disused mineshaft, connected to other mine works on adjoining land, when reservoir filled with water, flooded neighbours land
-D liable

Question 5

What are the 4 elements to be proven for the claim?

Answer 5

1. The bringing onto the land and an accumulation or storage (unnaturally)
2. Of a thing that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes
3. Which amounts to a non-natural use of the land
4. Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to the adjoining property

Question 6

Acronym for the 4 elements

Answer 6

-BAMENF

Question 7

Claimants

Answer 7

-must have interest in the land to bring claim. Must own or lease/rent.

Question 8

Case for claimants

Answer 8

-Transco v plc v stockport metropolitan borough council
-must have interest in the land.
-modernising R+F
-can’t claim for PI
-Thing must pose exceptional risk

Question 9

Potential defendants

Answer 9

-Owner or occupier of the land
-have some sort of control over the land which material stored

Question 10

D’s liability for personal injury

Answer 10

-In Transco HL commented orbiter that not possible to claim for personal injury in tort of R+F.

Question 11

1. Bringing onto the land and accumulating

Answer 11

-Thing must be bought onto land, not if naturally grows there

Question 12

Cases for bringing onto the land

Answer 12

Giles v Walker
-seeds from thistles on D’s land blew into neighbouring land owned by C and damaged crops. Not liable as not brought onto his land, naturally grows

Ellison v Ministry of defence
-Rain water that accumulated naturally on airfield escaped and caused flood on neighbouring land - not liable

Question 13

2. The thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes - explanation and 5 examples

Answer 13

-Test of foreseeability
-not the escape that must be foreseen but the mischief it may cause if escaped
Eg of things that can cause damage
-gas and electricity
-poisonous fumes
-flag pole
Tree branches
-occupied chair from chair o-plane-ride

Question 14

Case for chair o plane ride (mischief)

Answer 14

-Hale v Jennings bros
-chair detached from main assembly when running and injured stall holder at fair as crashed.
-liable as risk of injury foreseeable if car came loose
-one of few cases where can claim for PI under RF.
-now not possible to claim

Question 15

2 cases for fire (mischief)

Answer 15

-LMS international LTD v Styrene packaging and insulation: fire in D’s factory, large amount flammable material. Fire service in 5 mins but spread to C’s property. Damage. Brought claim of RF nuisance and negligence. Liable as accumulated things known fire hazard, close to hot wire cutting machines, foreseeable risk and non-natural use
-Stannard v Gore: electrical fault on D’s land caused fire. D storing tyres, spread to these which fed it, spread to C’s land. Liable as tyres selves not flammable but had special fire risks so if fire did develop may ignite. BUT COA reversed as tyres non dangerous activity, non-natural and no relevant escape

Question 16

Is fire likely to be seen as RF now?

Answer 16

-No as thing needs to escape not the fire which was started or increased by the thing

Question 17

3. Non natural use - history

Answer 17

-R v F: used term non natural use
-Rickards v Lothian: used non-ordinary. Harder for C’s as something ordinary use of land will be non-natural. If use of land beneficial to the community then unlikely to be seen as non-natural

Question 18

4 case names for non natural use

Answer 18

-Rickards v Lothian
-British cleanest v A H Hunt Ltd
-Cambridge water co v eastern counties leather
-Transco v PLC v Stockport

Question 19

Rickards v Lothian

Answer 19

-Unknown person turned on water taps and blocked plugs on D’s premises. Damage caused in flat below. D not liable as use of water in domestic pipes natural use of land

Question 20

British celanese

Answer 20

-D’s stored strips of metal foil which were used in the manufacturing of electrical components, some strips of foil blew offD’s land onto electricity substation causing power failure
-use of land natural as benefitted the public

Question 21

Cambridge water co

Answer 21

-Storage of chemicals in a factory classic case of non natural use, just bc important source of local employment, no natural.

Question 22

Transco

Answer 22

-Non natural land refers to ‘extraordinary or unusual’ use of land.
-no liability for D if they could not have foreseen an ‘exceptionally high risk of danger”

Question 23

4. The thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage -explain + case name

Answer 23

-must escape from one property onto adjoining property (stannard)
-Read v J Lyon’s and co Ltd - confirmed in Transco
-not always strictly applied - hale v Jennings bros

Question 24

Read v J Lyon’s

Answer 24

-Munitions inspector inspecting munitions factory, injured and so were employees when shell exploded.
-no escape of the relevant kind, still in confines of factory
-escape means escape from a place where the D has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control

Question 25

Foreseeable damage case

Answer 25

-Cambridge water co v eastern counties leather
-D’s stored chemicals to do with leather tanning, spillages over years, chemicals seeped through concrete floor and into soil.
-polluted area where C’s extracted water for local population, spent millions moving operations. Claimed expensed but seen as too remote from site of damage.

Question 26

What are the defences for RF

Answer 26

-Volenti non fit injuries (consent)
-Act of a stranger
-Act of god
-Statutory authority
-Contributory negligence

Question 27

Problem with defences for RF

Answer 27

-Strict liability offence but if have defences then can’t rlly be SL

Question 28

Consent

Answer 28

-no liability where C consented to the thing that has accumulated

Question 29

Act of a stranger + case

Answer 29

-If stranger who D has no control over has been the cause of the escape causing the damage then D may not be liable
-Perry v Kendricks transport Ltd:D’s parked bus on their parking space. Drained tank of petrol. Stranger removed petrol cap and child injured when another child threw match into tank igniting fumes. Valid defence

Question 30

Act of God and case

Answer 30

-Extreme weather conditions that no human foresight can provide against, only if unforeseeable weather conditions, has to be extreme and severe
-Nichols v Marsland: D made 3 artificial ornamental lakes by damming natural stream. Thunderstorms w torrential rain broke banks, caused destruction of bridges on C’s land. No liability as weather so extreme.

Question 31

Statutory authority

Answer 31

-If terms of act of parliament authorise dfts action then this may amount to defence

Question 32

Contributory negligence

Answer 32

-Where C partly responsible for escape of the thing then the law reform (contrib neg) act 1945 applies and damages reduced.

Question 33

Remedies

Answer 33

-Must show damage or destruction of property to get claim for damages. Level of damages will be the cost of repair or replacement of property damaged.
*none for PI
-Injunctions (partial and full)