Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

definition

Answer 1

The bringing onto the land and an accumulation of a thing that is 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

Question 2

requirements of the tort

Answer 2

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

Question 3

potential claimants

Answer 3

the C must have a interest in the land to bring a claim. This means that he/she must own the land or rent/lease it. This was confirmed in the case of Transco plc v Stockport council

Question 4

potential defendants

Answer 4

either be the owner or occupier of the land. It is assumed that the D must have some sort of control over the land on which the material is accumulated

Question 5

defendant can be liable for personal injury since obiter in

Answer 5

Transco plc v Stockport council

Question 6

1. bringing onto the land and accumulating

Answer 6

the ‘thing’ must be brought onto the land. This requirement will not be satisfied if the thing is naturally there e.g. growing naturally

Question 7

Giles v Walker

Answer 7

seeds from some thistles on Ds land blew into neighbouring land owned by the C and damaged his crops . D wasn’t liable as he hadn’t brought thistle;es onto his land and there cannot be liable under R v F for a thing which naturally accumulates on the land

Question 8

Ellison v Ministry of defence

Answer 8

D constructed bulk fuel installations at Greenham common airfield. This caused rain water which had accumulated on the airfield to run off + flood neighbouring land
not liable as the construction was an ordinary use of the land + rain water accumulated wasn’t artificially kept there

Question 9

2. the thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes

Answer 9

the thing which is brought onto the land must be likely to do damage if it escapes. This is a test of foreseeability. It is not the escape itself that must be foreseen, only the mischief it may cause if it escapes
examples;
>gas and electricity
>poisonous fumes
>tree branches
> a flag pole
> very rarely fire

Question 10

Hale v Jennings bros

Answer 10

a ‘chair-o-plane’ car on a fairground ride became detached injuring a stall holder
the owner of the ride was liable as the risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose
this is one of the few personal injury claims which was successful under
R v F

Question 11

LMS international v Styrene packaging

Answer 11

a fire station in Ds which contained a large quantity of flammable material. The fire service arrived within five minutes of being called. The fire spread to the C adjoining property causing it to be damaged.
D was held liable as it had accumulated things which were a known fire risk + stored close to a jot wire which made fire more likely
recognisable risk + non-natural use of the land

Question 12

Stannard v Gore

Answer 12

D stored tyres in relation to his tyre fitting business, a fire ignited + spread causing damage to Cs adjoining premises
CofA states it was not possible for a R v F claim here.
It is essential requirement of the tort that the D has brought some dangerous ‘thing’ onto the land, and that ‘thing’ must escape, causing damage. The fire had escaped not the tyres

Question 13

3. a non-natural use of the land

Answer 13

> in R v F, Lord Cairns in the H of L used the term non-natural use
in Rickards v Lothian, Lord Moulton used the term non-ordinary. Harder test for claimants to satisfy

Question 14

Rickards v Lothian

Answer 14

an unknown person turned on water taps and blocked plug hokes on the Ds premises so that damage was caused to the flat below
The D wasn’t liable as the use of water in domestic pipes was a natural use of the land

Question 15

British Celanese v A H Hunt ltd

Answer 15

D stored strips of metal foil, which were used in the manufacturing of electrical components.
Some of these strips of foil blew off the Ds land onto a electricity substation, causing power failure
The use of land was natural because of the benefit obtained by the local population

Question 16

In Transco v plc v stockport council

Answer 16

Lord Bingham confirmed the use of non-natural and stated this would refer to some ‘extraordinary or unusual’ use of land

Question 17

4. the thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage

Answer 17

The stored item must escape from one property onto an adjoining property. This point is best Illustrated in Read v J Lyons Co

Question 18

Read v J Lyons Co

Answer 18

an inspector and a number of employees were injured in a munitions factory when a shell exploded
The H of L held that the rule didn’t apply because there was ‘no escape at all of the relevant kind’
An escape in R v F means ‘an escape from a place where the D has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control’

Question 19

5. Foreseeable damage

Answer 19

> Cambridge water co v Eastem counties leather

Question 20

Cambridge Water Co. v Easter Counties leather

Answer 20

D stored chemicals to do with their leather tanning - there were frequent spillages over the yrs + chemicals seeped through the concrete floor and into the soil below
It polluted an area where the C extracted water for the local population + involved the water company spending over a million pounds moving its operations
H of L decided that damage was not reasonably foreseeable and too remote from the site of the spillage

Question 21

defences

Answer 21

> volenti non fit injuria
Act of a stranger
an act of God
statutory authority
contributory negligence

Question 22

Act of a stranger

Answer 22

if a stranger over whom the defendant has o control has been the cause of the escape causing the damage, then the defendant may not be liable

Question 23

Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd

Answer 23

The Ds parked their bus on their parking space, having drained the tank of petrol
A stranger removed the petrol cap and a child was injured when another child threw a match into the tank which ignited fumes
A claim was made in R v F. There was a valid defence of an act of a stranger and no liability

Question 24

An Act of God

Answer 24

this defence may succeed where there are extreme weather condition that ‘no human foresight can provide against’. It is only likely to succeed if there are unforeseeable weather conditions

Question 25

Nichols v Marsland

Answer 25

The D made three artificial lakes by damning a natural stream
Freak thunderstorms accompanied by torrential rain broke he banks of the lake, which caused destruction of bridges on the Cs land
There was no liability because the weather conditions were so extreme and amounted to an Act of God

Question 26

Statutory authority

Answer 26

if the terms of an Act of parliament authoritise the Ds action, this may amount to a defence

Question 27

Contributory negligence

Answer 27

where the C is partly responsible for the escape of the thing, then the Law Reform (contributory negligence) Act 1945 applies and damages may be reduced according to the amount of the Cs fault

Question 28

Remedies

Answer 28

A C must show damage or destruction of property in order to succeed in a claim for damages. The level of damages will be the cost of repair or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed.
> injunctions (full or partial)
>damages for property (compensation)