Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

Definition

Answer 1

Escape of a dangerous thing in the course of non-natural use of land, occupier of land is liable for the damage irrespective of fault (Rylands v Fletcher)

Question 2

Who can claim

Answer 2

Those with ownership or exclusive possession (Transco)

Question 3

Who can be sued

Answer 3

The person from whose land the thing escaped from. Who has control of land, can be licensee.

Question 4

D brings onto land

Answer 4

-Has to not naturally be on the land. Compare Rylands v Fletcher (water not naturally on land) to Giles v Walker (thistledown occurred naturally).

Question 5

Likely to do mischief

Answer 5

D recognised or ought to have recognised the high risk of danger if the thing accumulated on their land, escaped (Transco v Stockport MBC) Doesn’t need to be ultra-hazardous. Could be gas, animal, water, plants.

Question 6

If it escapes

Answer 6

The thing on the land must cause damage off the land. Munitions exploded on site so no escape (Read v Lyons). Tyres caught fire escaped not tyres, claim failed (Stannard v Gore).

Question 7

Which represents a non-natural use of land

Answer 7

• Looks at all the circumstances including time, place and normal practice.
• Considers quantities of combustible material (Mason v Levy), the way in which it is stored, and the character of the locality.
• Non-natural means ‘abnormal’ (Rickards v Lothian).
• Non-natural means ‘extraordinary and unusual’ (Transco).

Question 8

Which causes foreseeable damage of a relevant type

Answer 8

Damage must be reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the escape (Wagon Mound). (Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather).

Question 9

Liability is strict

Answer 9

Liable even if you have taken all reasonable care but can avoid liability if damage not foreseeable or defence .

Question 10

Defences to Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 10

1. Statutory authority: something permitted by an AoP will be a defence to an escape.
2. Act by a stranger: An act by a stranger may break the chain of causation if it is unforeseeable.
3. Act of God: Breaks the chain of causation because D has no control over forces of nature.
4. Common benefit: If accumulation benefits C as well as D, then D unlikely to be liable.
5. Contributory negligence & consent.