RYLANDS V FLETCHER Flashcards
ELEMENTS UNDER RVF
- DEFENDANT MUST CONTROL THE LAND FROM WHICH PROBLEM HAS COME
- DEFENDANT MUST HAVE BROUGHT OR ACCUMULATED STH IN THE COURSE OF UNNATURAL USE OF THE LAND
- THING BROUGHT OR ACCUMULATED MUST BE DANGEROUS
- THERE MUST BE A DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF THE ESCAPE
DEFENDANT MUST CONTROL THE LAND
(SMITH V SCOTT)
IT WAS HELD THAT THE RULE COULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE LANDLORD OF TENANTS AS CONTROL OF THE LAND WOULD LIE WITH THE TENANTS
CAN INCUL LIABILITY FOR BRINGING A DANGEROUS THING TO THE HIGHWAY IF IT THEN ESCAPES TO SOMEONES LAND
(RIGBY V CHIEF CONSTABLE NORTHHAMPTONSHIRE)
BROUGHT OR ACCUMULATED STH IN THE COURSE OF SOME UNNATURAL USE OF LAND
defendant will not be held liable for trees or plants that grow naturally nor the escape of water from land
(GILES V WALKER)
(RICKARDS V LOTHIAN) NOT HELD LIABLE
reiterated in (BRITISH CELANESE V A H HUNT)
HoL developed a new legal principle that industrial processes can be an unnatural use of land even though the community benefits
(CAMBRIDGE WATER V EASTERN COUNTIES LEATHER)
HoL placed a principle after…
that RvF should only apply after a cause of action where defendant’s use of land was out of the ordinary use considering time and place
(TRANSCO PLC)
A DANGEROUS THING
THING DEFENDANT BRINGS ONTO THE LAND MUST BE…
‘‘LIKELY TO CAUSE DAMAGE IF IT ESCAPES’’
THOUGH IT MAY BE QUITE SAFE IF NOT ALLOWED TO ESCAPE
Lord Bingham described the test of a dangerous thing as a strict one in…
(TRANSCO PLC)
EXAMPLES OF DANGEROUS THING
gas (BATCHELOR V TUNBRIDGE WELSS GAS CO), electricity (NATIONAL TELEPHONE CO V BAKER), chairoplane (HALE V JENNINGS), poisonous fumes (WEST V BRISTOL TRAMWAYS)
ESCAPE
(READ V LYONS)
(MILES V FOREST ROCK)
as long as there has been an unnatural use of land the thing that escapes need not be the thing that was accumulated
…confirmed in (STANNARD V GORE)
TRADITIONALLY ESCAPE WAS…
THAT THE RELEASE OF THE DANGEROUS THING HAS TO BE ACCIDENTAL
HOWEVER, IT WAS SUGGESTED IN (CROWN RIVER CRUISES V KIMBOLTON FIREWORKS)THAT RVF COULD BE EXTENDED TO THING RELEASED KNOWINGLY
DAMAGE
the tort is not actionable per se, so escape of dangerous thing must be proved to have caused damage to land or property
(TRANSCO) makes it clear that one cannot claim for damages under personal injury or death
WHO CAN SUE??
THOUGH RVF DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE CLAIMANT NEEDS TO BE AN OWNER IT WAS THOUGHT THAT THE CLAIMANT MUST HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE LAND AFFECTED BY THE ESCAPE
(WELLER V FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE RESEARCH INSTITUTE)
(READ V LYONS) obiter dicta claimant must be an occupier
WHO CAN BE SUED??
The defendant must be someone who is in control of the dangerous thing not necessarily for the defendant to have a proprietary interest in the land for which the dangerous thing escaped
DEFENCES…
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
(PETERS V PRINCE OF WALES THEATRE)
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
DEFENDANT MAY AVOID LIABILITY IF A RELEVANT STATUTE AUTHORISES DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS.
SOME ACTS DONT INTERPRET THE ACT SO THE COURTS ARE LEFT TO INTERPRET.
(GREEN V CHELSEA WATERWORKS)
ACT OF A STRANGER
(RICKARDS V LOTHIAN)
defence cannot be used if the act is one that the defendant ought to have reasonably foreseen
(BOX V JUBB)
ACT OF GOD
ESCAPE IS CAUSED BY NATURAL FORCES AND according to judgement in (TENNANT V EARL OF GLASGOW) NO HUMAN FORESIGHT CAN PROVIDE AGAINST
(CARSTAIRS V TAYLOR)
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
CLAIMANTS OWN ACT OR OMMISSION CAUSES DAMAGE THERE WILL BE NO SUCCESSFUL CLAIM. DAMAGES WILL BE REDUCED
(DUNN V BIRMINGHAM NAVIGATION COAL)
the claimant is partly to blame then defence of contributory negligence applies
(PONTING V NOAKES)
