Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
D was mill owner who wanted to build reservoir. He got independent contractors to assess the land and they discovered a disused mineshaft under D’s land but believed it was full of earth. Once reservoir was built, water flooded mineshaft which his neighbour owned. D had not been negligent as he trusted the contractors. But was liable for Damage to C’s land.
Weller & Co. v Foot and Mouth disease research Institute (1966)
WHO CAN SUE:
Foot and mouth disease escaped from D’s research centre. Led to a ban in movement of livestock. The claimant was cattle auctioneers who were unable to trade but their claim failed as they didn’t own the land that the virus escaped onto.
General Elements Of Rylands v Fletcher
C Must Show:
- D brought something onto their land
- D made a non-natural use of their land
- The thing was something likely to cause mischief if escaped
- The thing did escape from D’s land onto C’s land
- The thing caused damage
Smith v Scott (1973)
WHO CAN BE SUED:
Council tenants of house caused disruption to neighbours. Council were not to blame as it was tenants of house who were in control of land.
Giles v Walker (1890)
BRINGS ONTO LAND:
Seeds from thistles blew from D’s land onto C’s land. Thistles were naturally occurring so D was not liable.
Richards v Lothian (1913)
NON NATURAL USE OF LAND:
Tap was left running and flooded C’s part of building damaging his stock. CoA held that water was an ordinary use of land.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)
NON NATURAL USE OF LAND:
D’s were concerned in the tanning of leather. Chemical used was normally spilled onto the floor. Water company underneath the tanning could not sell the water as it was infected. Damage was too remote however, court claimed that the chemicals were a non-natural use of land.
Read v Lyons (1946)
ESCAPES:
The claim failed as the dangerous thing did not escape. C was munitions inspector and was injured at the factory. The object did not escape.
Box v Jubb (1879)
ACT OF STRANGER:
D’s Reservoir overflowed onto C’s land. D was not liable as overflow was caused by 3rd party.
Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894)
STATUTORY AUTHORITY:
Waterworks were under a duty authorised by parliament to provide water. Claim failed as damage was foreseeable.
Nichols v Marsland (1876)
ACT OF GOD:
C’s land was flood after heavy rain caused land to flood. Nobody could claim as it was an act of god.
