Rylands V Fletcher

Question 1

1. There are 4 elements that must be proved in order for there to be….

Answer 1

A successful claim under the strict liability tort of Rylands v Fletcher.
1. The bringing onto land and accumulation.
2. Of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes.
3. Which amounts to a non-natural use of land.
4. Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property.
C must have an interest in the land.
APPLY: Did C have an interest in the land?

Question 2

2. D will either be the…

Answer 2

Owner or occupier of the land.
APPLY: is D the owner or occupier?

Question 3

3. There must be a…

Answer 3

Bringing onto the land of an accumulation of a substance.
APPLY: what is being brought onto the land as an accumulation of a substance?

Question 4

4. If the thing in question is….

Answer 4

Already naturally present on the land, then there can be no liability: Giles v Walker.
There is no liability for a thing that naturally accumulates on the land, Ellison v Ministry of defence.

Question 5

5. The thing which D brings on the land must be likely to…

Answer 5

Do mischief if it escapes.
It isn’t the escape that has to be foreseeable only the damage caused.
In Rylands v Fletcher it was held that water would cause mischief if it escaped.
However in Stannard v Gore it was held that tyres weren’t inherently dangerous if they escaped - it was tyres that were accumulated not the resulting fire.
APPLICATION

Question 6

6. There must be a…..

Answer 6

Non-natural use of the land.
This doesnt mean a use that is artificial or man-made, this means a use which isn’t common place. In Transco v Stockport the use was considered natural and Lord Bingham stated that the test should be that the use of land will only be non-natural if it is ‘extraordinary and unusual’ in the particular circumstances and time.
APPLY: what is the non natural use of the land?

Question 7

7. The thing stored must….

Answer 7

Escape and cause foreseeable damage, Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather LPC. In Reads v Lyon there was no escape so C couldn’t claim.
APPLY: did the thing escape and cause foreseeable damage?

Question 8

8. In conclusion…

Answer 8

D does/ doesnt have a claim using Rylands v Fletcher.

Question 9

9. Defences

Answer 9

• Consent, Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre.
• Contributory negligence, Sayers v Harlow.
• Act of stranger, Perry v Kendricks LTD.
• Act of God, Nicholas v Marshland.
• Statutory Authority, Charing Cross electricity supply co v hydraulic power co.
  APPLY: does D have a defence?

Question 10

10. Remedies

Answer 10

Damages