rylands v fletcher

Question 1

what is it

Answer 1

• a particular type of nuisance
• protects occupier against interference caused by an isolated escape (a one-off escape) from his neighbour’s land
• a form of strict liability
• a restrictive approach has been taken
• there have been attempts to do away with liability under R v F but the HOL has retained it

Question 2

what happened in the case?

Answer 2

• Rylands had built a reservoir on his land. sometime later, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine run by Fletcher
• HOL ruled that the D’s were strictly liable for the escape and that they ought to pay damages to the C
• a person must keep a dangerous thing at his peril

Question 3

requirements of the rule in rylands v fletcher

Answer 3

1. something must have been collected and kept on the land
2. the use of the land must be non-natural
3. the thing brought onto the land must be likely to do mischief if it escapes
4. the thing brought onto the land must have escaped and caused damage (the damage must not be too remote)

Question 4

collected and kept on the land

Answer 4

Giles V Walker:
- seeds from some thistles on D’s land blew into neighbouring land owned by C and damaged his crops. D was not liable as he had not brought the thistles onto his land
- there is no liability under R v f for a thing which naturally accumulates on land

Miles v Forest Granite:
- explosives kept on land were detonated to break up some rocks. some of the rocks were forced into the air and escaped the D’s property and injured C. the explosives caused the rocks to escape the property. the defendant was held to be liable

• the thing collected and kept on land need not be the thing that escapes. something collected and kept on land that causes something else to escape can lead to liability

Question 5

non-natural use of the land

Answer 5

Rickards v Lothian

• non-natural means more like unnatural
• water had escaped from an overflow pipe connected to a washbasin where the tap had been left running and the washbasin’s waste pipe had been blocked by an unknown person. the PC held that the water from the overflow pipe did not involve the non-natural use of land. it was also accepted that damage was caused by a third party (i.e. the person who deliberately turned the tap on and blocked the waste pipe)
• ordinary water pipes that are in all buildings are not a non-natural use of the land. Lord Moulton said that it must be “some special use bringing with it increased danger to others”

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather:
- the storage of large quantities of chemicals on industrial premises was ‘an almost classic case of non-natural use’ even in an industrial area
- HOL described ‘non-natural use’ as meaning extraordinary and unusual. chemicals were ‘non-natural’ because they are not kept in buildings

Transco PLC v Stockport MBC:
- provision of a water supply to a block of flats by a pipe was a natural use of land

• Lord Hoffman confirmed Cambridge Water
• no liability for personal injury in Rylands

Question 6

a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes

Answer 6

hale v jennings bros:
- a roundabout chair on a fairground ride caused mischief when it hit C

• the thing need not be inherently hazardous, it need only be a thing likely to cause damage if it escapes

Question 6

defences to rylands

Answer 6

1. act of god- vis major
2. act of a stranger
3. contributory negligence
4. statutory authority
5. consent

Question 7

escaped and caused damage

Answer 7

escape:
- proof of an actual escape is vital

read v lyons:
- some explosives detonated in a munitions factory killing one person and injuring others

• HOL held that no liability arose because the persons injured were on the premises and there was no escape from the factory

damage:
cambridge water v eastern counties leather plc:
- D owned a leather tanning business. spillages of small quantities of solvents occurred over a long period of time which seeped through the floor of the building into the soil below. these solvents made their way to the borehole owned by C’s water company. the borehole was used for supplying water to local residents. the water was contaminated and C had to cease using the borehole

• D was not liable as the damage was too remote. it was not reasonably foreseeable that the spillages would result in the closing of the borehole. it was not the type of harm expected

Question 8

defences- consent

Answer 8

peters v prince of wales theatre:
- D was not liable where tenant had consented to the use of a sprinkler system which damaged his property

Question 9

defences- act of god (vis major)

Answer 9

Nichols v Marsland:
- D was not liable where extraordinary rainfall caused dams to break and water to escape from his land

Greenock Corp v Caledonian Rly:
- D liable even though there had been extraordinary rainfall allowing water to escape from his pool- this suggests act of god unlikely to succeed as a defence today

Question 10

defences- act of a stranger

Answer 10

rickards v lothian:
- tenants caused a flood by turning on taps and blocking sinks
- escape was caused due to the deliberate act of a third party that the D could not have known about, so D was not liable

Question 11

defences- contributory negligence

Answer 11

• law reform act 1945 s1- nichols and marsland