Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
Introduce Rylands v Fletcher.
- Property’s damaged by something that comes from a neighbouring property
- Strict liability tort
- Mr Justice Blackburn: ‘person who brings on his land + keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, he is answerable for all damage which is natural consequence of its escape’
- Rylands v Fletcher: gave 3 elements that must be proved. (now a 4th as well)
- Read v Lyons: C + D must have interest in land.
Explain the first element of Rylands v Fletcher, Bringing Onto Land + Accumulation (Or Storage).
- Giles v Walker: must be a bringing onto land of a substance which isn’t naturally present on land.
- Ellison v Ministry of Defence: tort failed, where a thing naturally accumulates on land.
Explain the second element of Rylands v Fletcher, Thing Is Likely To Do Mischief If It Escapes.
- Test of foreseeability- thing which D brings onto land must be likely to damage if escapes. (only damage must be foreseeable, not escape)
- Examples: electricity, toxic chemicals, flagpole
- Hale v Jennings Bros: ‘chair-o-plane’ car is also a thing can do mischief.
- Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: not now possible to claim for personal injury.
Explain the third element of Rylands v Fletcher, Non-Natural Use Of Land.
(newly introduced)
* Rylands v Fletcher: Lord Cairns indicated requirement of a non-natural use of land.
* Richards v Lothian: Lord Moulton developed concept of non-natural use. Must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others.
* Examples Of Natural Uses Of Land: fire which spread to C’s premises, domestic water supply, defective wiring causing fire spreading to C’s premises.
* Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Countries Leather plc: certain activities may always lead to a potential level of danger, amounting to a non-natural use of land.
Explain the fourth element of Rylands v Fletcher, Thing Stored Must Escape + Cause Foreseeable Damage.
- Read v Lyon’s + Co. Ltd: stored item must escape from one property onto an adjoining property.
- LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging + Insulation Ltd: fire can be the issue.
- Standard v Gore: confirmed LMS International Ltd.
-
Wyvern: Ward LJ concluded damaged cause by fire can fall within RvF claim, but likely to be very rare because:
1) ‘Thing’ brought onto land which must escape, not fire which started by ‘thing’.
2) While fire might be a dangerous things, occasions where bought onto land may be limited to cases where fire had been deliberately/negligently started by occupier.
3) Starting fire on one’s land may be an ordinary use of land.
Explain the Defence of Consent (Volenti Non Fit Injura), with regards to Rylands v Fletcher.
- Full defence, C accepts voluntary assumption of risk of harm.
To succeed D has to show:
1) Knowledge of the precise risk involved
2) Exercies of free choice by C
3) Voluntary acceptance of risk - S.149 Road Traffic Act 1998: defence can’t be used for road traffic accidents- as of 3rd party insurance.
- Stermer v Lawson: defence wont apply merely because C knows of existence of risk; must have full understanding of nature of actual risk.
- Smith v Baker: wont succeed where C has no choice but to accept risk.
- Sidaway v Governors of Bethlem Royal + Maudsley Hospitals: consent relevant in medical claims.
- If C acts against employers orders + is injured, defence likely to succeed
Explain the defence of an Act Of A Stranger, with regards to Rylands v Fletcher.
- Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd: if stranger who D has no control over has caused escape causing damage, D may not be liable.
Explain the defence of an Act Of A God, with regards to Rylands v Fletcher.
- Nichols v Marsland: only succeeds where, extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight can provide against’
Explain the defence of Statutory Authority, with regards to Rylands v Fletcher.
- Act of Parliament authorises D’s actions
Explain the defence of Contributory Negligence, with regards to Contributory Negligence.
Act of 3rd party.
* Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945: any damages awarded to C can be reduced according to extent/level they contributed to their own harm.
* Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council: not a full defence + only results in reduction of damages.
* Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) Ltd: possible for there to be a 100% reduction in damages.
* O’Connell v Jackson: damages can be reduced where motorcyclist fails to wear crash helmet.
* Stinton v Stinton: C accepted lift from drunk driver- knew he was over the limit. Damages were reduced.
