rylands v fletcher

Question 1

what is the ryalnds v fletcher tort

Answer 1

strict liability tort , where a claimant must have an interest in the land to pursue a claim

• transco

Question 2

who can be a defendant in a r v fletcher claim

Answer 2

• defendant needs to be either the accumulator or the occupier/ controller of the land where the ‘thing’ is accumulated
• read v Lyons.

Question 3

what must the claimant show in a rylands v fletcher claim regarding the ‘thing’

Answer 3

• the things brought onto and accumulated on the defendents land ( not naturally occurring e.g rain water / weeds , Giles v walker)

-thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes - ryland v fletcher

• thing escaping must cause damage - stannard v gore

Question 4

does the thing need to be inherently dangerous under r v f

Answer 4

• no ( shiffman), but must cause damage if it escapes ( hale v jennings bros)

Question 5

what are examples of things likely to cause mischief if they escape

Answer 5

• gas/ electricity
• tree branches

Question 6

-what must be proven regarding an escape of a thing

Answer 6

-must be escape, either from land the d controls ( read v Lyons) or circumstances under the defendents control ( transco)

• harm caused by escape must be foreseeable - transco

Question 7

what constitutes a non natural use of land under r v f

Answer 7

• extraordinary/ unusual use - transco
• potentially dangerous activity - Cambridge water v eastern counties leather
• storing things in large quantities - mason v levy autoparts
• domestic use are considered natural uses
• public benefit may render the use natural

Question 8

are claims for personal injury/ financial loss allowed under r v f

Answer 8

• claims unlikely to be permitted for personal injury - Cambridge water
• financial loss - weller

Question 9

what are defences to a r v f claim

Answer 9

• volenti non fit injruria - claimant consented to the accumalation ( Peters v princes of Wales theatre)
• common benefit - things was brought onto the land for mutual benefit
• act of god - extreme weather conditions ( nicholls v Marsland
• act of a stranger - defendant had no control - Perry v Kendricks transport
• contributory negligence - claimants fault contributed to the damage - eastern and South Africa telegraph v Cape Town tramways

Question 10

remedies under r v f

Answer 10

compensatory damages to repair or replace damaged property