Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
The rule of Rylands v Fletcher
- This covers damage to the claimant’s property caused by something coming from the defendant’s land.
- Mr justice Blackburn
“ we think that the true rule of law is, that a person who, for purpose of his own, brings onto his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief/ damage if it escapes, must keep it in his peril , and, if he does not do so , he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape”
In law, prima facie is a latin term meaning “ at first sight” or” on the face of it “. It is used to describe when there’s enough evidence to support a case at first glance.
The thing brought on to the land must amount to a ‘non-natural ‘ use - strict liability - liable even if the defendants has taken care to avoid the escape
- The type of harm should be foreseeable - cambridge water co v Eastern counties leather plc 1994
Rylands v Fletcher 1868
The defendant a mill owner, hired contractors to create a reservoir on his land to act as a water supply to the mill. The contractors negligently failed to block off disused mineshafts that they came across during their excavations. Unknown to the contractors, these shafts were connected to other mine works adjoining land. When the reservoir was filled, water flooded the neighbouring mines.
Elements of the tort
1 Bringing onto the land and an accumulation or storage
2 of a thing likely to cause mischief/ damage if it escapes
3 which amounts to a non-natural use of the land and
4 which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property
The parties to an action
- Traditionally this had been the owner or renter interest in the land
- Viscount Simon- a defendant to an action in Ryland v Fletcher will be either the owner or occupier of the land who satisfies the four elements of the tort, all of which must be present for liability. It is assumed that they must have some control over the land on which the material is stored. Read v Lyons 1947
The bringing onto the land
- Bringing onto the land a substance which is not naturally present on the land.
- Giles v Walker 1890- there was no liability of weeds growing onto neighbouring land as weeds grew there naturally
- Ellison v Ministry of Defence 1997- rainwater accumulated naturally on an airfield at Greenham common and did not lead to liability when it escaped and flooded neighbouring land.
failed as its natural
hasn’t brought rainwater onto the land
The thing is likely to do mischief / damage if it escapes
- This is a test of foreseeability
- only damage is foreseeable
- for example :
-gas and electricity - poisonous fumes
- A flag pole
-Tree branches - an occupied chair from a chair- o -plane ride Hale v Jennings bros 1938
Hale v Jennings Bros 1938
A ‘chair o plane’ car on a fairground ride became detached from the main assembly while in motion and injured a stall holder as it crashed to the ground. The owner of the ride was liable as the risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose. This is one of the few cases where a claim for personal injury using Rylands v fletcher was successful. Note that in Transco plc v Stockport metropolitan borough council 2003, the house of lords commented, obiter that is is now possible to claim for personal injury under tort.
foreseeable that it cause harm if detaches
legal principle Rylands v fletcher can be used to claim for personal injury
A non-natural use of the land
- Lord cairns in the HOL
“ if the defendants, not stopping at the natural use of their close, had desired to use it for any purposes which i may term as non- natural use … and in consequence of doing so … the water came to escape then it appears to me that which the defendants were doing they were doing at their own peril” - this concept was developed in Rickards v Lothian 1913 by lord moulton:
“ it is not every use of land which brings into play this principle. It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, not merely by the ordinary use of land or such as is proper for the general benefit of the community” - The concept will change over time, with technology and lifestyle.
- e,g Musgrove v pandelis 1919 - keeping a car in a garage with petrol in the tank was seen as a non-natural use of the land,
- case law suggests that ‘non natural’ refers to some extraordinary or unusual use of the land. This mean that storing domestic things, even though they may be dangerous may not be unnatural.
- The following have been decided by the courts to be natural:
- a fire in a grate which spread to the claimants premises
- defective electrical wiring that caused a fire
- a domestic water supply
Rickards v Lothian 1913
An unknown person turned on the water taps and blocked the plug holes on the defendants premises, so that the damage was caused in the flat below. The defendant was not liable as the use of water in domestic pipes was a natural use of land.
British celanese v A H Hunt ltd 1969
The defendants stored strips of metal foil, which were used in the manufacturing of electrical components, some of these strips of foil blew off the defendants land onto the electricity substation , causing a power failure, The court held that the use of the land was natural because of the benefit obtained by the local population.
legal principle the courts accept that certain activities may lead to a potential level of danger, which amounts to a non natural use of the land, whatever the benefit to public.
The thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage
- the substance must move from one property to another for there to be liability Read v Lyons and co ltd 1947
- There can be liability if both claimant and defendant are on the same land hale v Jennings bros 1938
- The house of lords reviewed past case law in Transco plc v Stockport metropolitan borough council 2003 and took the line of read v Lyons - the court felt that the as this was a specific form of nuisance there needed to be a claim on the land
- The HOL introduced the requirement that the damage to the property must be reasonably foreseeable in Cambridge water co v Eastern counties leather 1994
Read v j Lyons and co Ltd 1947
A munitions inspector was inspecting the interior of a munitions factory and was injured, along with a number of employees, when a shell exploded. The house of lords held that the rule did not apply because there was ‘ no escape at all of the relevant kind’ . Viscount simon explained that an escape in Rylands v Fletchers 1868 means ‘ an escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control’ . munitions- bullets/ explosives
legal principle the thing must move from one land to another
Cambridge water co v Eastern counties leather 1994
The defendants stored chemicals with it’s leather tanning . There were frequent spillages over the years and the chemicals seeped through the concrete floor and into the soil below. It polluted the area where the claimants extracted water for the local population and involved the water company spending over a million pounds in moving it operations. The water company claimed these expenses from the owners of the factory but the house of lords decided that the damage was not reasonably foreseeable and too remote from the site of the spillage.
legal principle the damage must be reasonably foreseeable
LMS international Ltd v Styrene packaging and insulation ltd 2005
The defendants factory contained a large quantity of flammable material which was stored close to hot wire cutting machines. A fire broke out, and spread to the claimants adjoining property , although the fire services arrives within five minutes of being called. The claimant brought an action based on Rylands v fletcher , nuisance and negligence for damages to its property.
It was held that as the defendants had accumulated things which were a known fire risk, it was liable in Rylands v fletcher. Storage of the flammable items represented a recognisable to the claimants and a non-natural user of the land. The defendant was also liable in negligence and nuisance,
legal principle a successful claim for damage caused by fire
Stannard t/a wyvern Tyres v gore 2012
The defendant stored tyres in relation to his tyre fitting business. A fire broke out and rapidly spread, causing damage to the claimants adjoining premises. the trial judge found that the defendant was not negligent but was strictly liable to the claimant in Rylands v fletcher.
The judge found that the tyres are not in themselves normally flammable, but they did have a special fire risks so that if a fire did develop the tyres might ignite: and if they did they may burn rapidly and intensely. Further the tyres were stored haphazardly and in large quantities for the size of the premises. In this case the storage of the tyres, in this particular situation , presented an exceptionally high risk of danger and was a non-natural use of the land.
However, the court of appeal disagreed. The majority reasoning that in light of transco plc v stockport , it was not possible for a claim here. In their view it is an essential requirement of the tort that the land, and that the thing must escape causing damage. In this case, where the fire had escaped but not the tyres, a claim based on Rylands v fletcher must fail. In any event the tyres were not exceptionally dangerous or mischievous.
Further, the commercial activity carried on by the defendant as a motor tyre supplier was a perfectly ordinary and reasonable activity to be carried on in light industrial estate, and was not therefore a non-natural use of the land for the purpose of the rule of Rylands v fletcher.
dealt with the issue of damage being caused by fire-updated the previous precedent.
Damage caused by fire
Ward LJ, in wyvern , concluded that in an appropraite case, damage caused by fire moving from an adjoining property can fall in Rylands v Fletcher but may be rare because:
1 it is the ‘thing’ which has been brought onto the land that needs to escape, not the fire
2 A dangerous fire may have been deliberately or negligently started, not brought onto the land
3 starting a fire may be an ordinary use of the land
cases of fire damage may now be difficult to claim under Rylands v fletcher
Defences
Although the tort is strict liability , there are some defences:
- volenti non fit injuria-consent
-act of a stranger perry v kendricks transport ltd 1956
- Act of god - nichols v marsland 1876 - no one could have predicted it
- statutory authority- piece legislation can do that thing its okay
- contributory negligence- Law reform ( contributory negligence act 1945 ) partial defence
Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd 1956
The defendants parked their bus on their parking space, having drained the tank of petrol. A stranger removed the petrol cap and a child was injured when another child threw a match into the tank which ignited the fumes. a claim was made in Rylands v fletcher. Their was a valid defence of an act of a stranger and no liability.
legal principle; Act of a stranger can be a defence
Nichols v Marsland 1876
The defendant made three artificial ornamental lakes by damming a natural stream. Freak thunderstorms accompanied by torrential rain broke the banks of the artificial lakes, which caused the destruction of bridges on the claimants land. There was no liability because the weather conditions were so extreme and amounted to an act of god.
legal principle; extreme condition that ‘ no human foresight can provide against’ can be a defence
Remedies
As there needs to be damage to property , the cost of repair will be the amount of damages
Rylands v fletchers and fault
- no fault/strict liability
- The claimant has to prove the storage of a non-natural substance
- the damage was reasonably foreseeable
-the reason for the escape does not have to be proved
Developement of Rylands v fletcher
- originally claim for damage to property and person
- Rickards v Lothian restricted the approach and encouraged claimants to use negligent to claim
- as strict liability - rvf should be easier to claim
- However, there are a number of defences
- other factors that make it difficult to claim
- prove non- natural use of the land
- only if the thing escapes read v Lyons
-special use of the land that brings increased danger Rickards v Lothian - The type of damage if foreseeable Cambridge water
- Pearson’s report 1978 - RVF should be abolished and replaced with a statutory scheme for injuries suffered by hazardous activities
- reservoirs act 1975
- Nuclear instillations act 1965 , 1969
- Health and safety at work 1974
