Rylands V Fletcher Flashcards
What are 3 key points about R v F?
-Type of tort
-Relates to land
-Strict liability tort
Where did it come from?
-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
How has the strictness of liability changed?
-Diluted, Cambridge water v eastern counties leather, HL said type of nuisance and same test of foreseeability
Rylands v Fletcher case
-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
What are the 4 elements to be proven for the claim?
- The bringing onto the land and an accumulation or storage (unnaturally)
- Of a thing that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes
- Which amounts to a non-natural use of the land
- Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to the adjoining property
Acronym for the 4 elements
-BAMENF
Claimants
-must have interest in the land to bring claim. Must own or lease/rent.
Case for claimants
-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
Potential defendants
-Owner or occupier of the land
-have some sort of control over the land which material stored
D’s liability for personal injury
-In Transco HL commented orbiter that not possible to claim for personal injury in tort of R+F.
- Bringing onto the land and accumulating
-Thing must be bought onto land, not if naturally grows there
Cases for bringing onto the land
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
- The thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes - explanation and 5 examples
-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
Case for chair o plane ride (mischief)
-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
2 cases for fire (mischief)
-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
Is fire likely to be seen as RF now?
-No as thing needs to escape not the fire which was started or increased by the thing
- Non natural use - history
-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
4 case names for non natural use
-Rickards v Lothian
-British cleanest v A H Hunt Ltd
-Cambridge water co v eastern counties leather
-Transco v PLC v Stockport
Rickards v Lothian
-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
British celanese
-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
Cambridge water co
-Storage of chemicals in a factory classic case of non natural use, just bc important source of local employment, no natural.
Transco
-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”
- The thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage -explain + case name
-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
Read v J Lyon’s
-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
Foreseeable damage case
-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.
What are the defences for RF
-Volenti non fit injuries (consent)
-Act of a stranger
-Act of god
-Statutory authority
-Contributory negligence
Problem with defences for RF
-Strict liability offence but if have defences then can’t rlly be SL
Consent
-no liability where C consented to the thing that has accumulated
Act of a stranger + case
-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
Act of God and case
-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.
Statutory authority
-If terms of act of parliament authorise dfts action then this may amount to defence
Contributory negligence
-Where C partly responsible for escape of the thing then the law reform (contrib neg) act 1945 applies and damages reduced.
Remedies
-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)
