Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
Definition of Ryland’s v Fletcher
Where the D brings something onto their land and stores is there. It escapes and causes damage to the claimants land. Strict liability offence with 5 stages to claim
stage 1: bringing onto the land and accumulation
defendant must bring something hazardous onto the land and keep it there, must be not naturally present- GILES v WALKER
the thing must be accumulated for the defendants own purpose- DUNNE v NORTH WEST GAS BOARD
stage 1 side rule:
the thing accumulated does not need to be the thing that escapes, can be a by product
stage 2: likely to cause mischief if it escapes
the damage must be foreseeable if the thing escapes, not that the thing itself is inherently dangerous- HALE v JENNING BROS
stage 3: the thing does escape
escape from a place the D has occupation and control over to a place outside of their control and contemplation- READ v LYONS
stage 4: non natural use of land
must be a non natural use of land defined as “extraordinary and unusual considering time and place and a special use brining increased danger to others”- TRANSCO
can be non natural due to quantity, volume or place where it is stored
stage 5: damage must be reasonably foreseeable and not too remote
if the D cannot predict it they cannot prevent it- CAMBRIDGE WATER
Acts of third parties
RICKARDS v LOTHIAN: only available if D was not able to reasonably foresee the actions of the third party and take steps to prevent them
Acts of god defence
Escape is due to natural causes that no human foresights could have guarded against (NICHOLS v MARSLAND) , rare for defence to succeed
Statutory authority defence
If the escape is caused by something the D legally obligated to do under an ACT OF PARL
Defaults of the claimant defence
Where damage is due to the act or default of the claimant
Consent of the claimant defence
C expressly or impliedly consented to D accumulating the thing
damages
can claim compensatory damages,
cant claim for personal injury (TRANSCO v STOCKPORT)
cant claim for pure economic loss (WELLER v FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE RESEARCH INSTITUTE)
