Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
what is the rule of rylands v fletcher?
this covers damage to the claimants property caused by something coming from the defendants land
what is the legal definition of
a person who brings onto his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in his peril, and if he does not so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape
the thing brought onto the land must amount to a non natural use
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 the disused mineshafts that they came across during the excavations. Unknown to the contractors, these shafts were connected to other mine works adjoining land. When the resovoir filled, water flooded the neighbouring mines
what are the key elements needed for rylands v fletcher
- bringing onto the land and an accumulation
- of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes
- which amounts to non natural use of the land and,
- which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property
who are parties to an action
traditionally this has been an owner or renter
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 ingredients of tort. it is assumed that they must have some control over the land which the material is stored read v lyons
Bringing onto the land?
this means that it must not be naturally present on the land
Giles v Walker = weeds grew naturally
Ellison v ministry of defence - rainwater accumulated naturally so did not lead to liability
what will happen if it escapes?
the thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes
this is a test of foreseeability
only the damage is foreseeable
i.e. poisonous fumes
Hale v Jennings Bro
rylands v fletcher can be used to claim for personal injury
a chair’o’plane became detached and crashed to the ground. now possible to claim for personal injury
what is a non natural use of the land?
Lord Cairns:
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.”
increased danger to others, in doing so… came to escape
how will the concept of non natural use change over time
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 means that storing domestic things, even through 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 claimant’s premises
Defective electrical wiring that caused a fire
A domestic water supply
British Celanese v A Hunt Ltd
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 defendant’s 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.
certain activities may lead to a level of danger, which amounts to non natural use of the land
Rickards v Lothian
An unknown person turned on the water taps and blocked the plug holes on the defendant’s 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.
the thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage, what does this mean?
The substance must move from one property to another for there to be liability (Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd 1947)
There can also 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.
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 Fletcher (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’.
MUST move from one land to another
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather
The defendants stored chemicals to do 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 its 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.
damage must be reasonably foreseeable
LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging and Insulation
The defendant’s 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 claimant’s adjoining property, although the fire services arrives within five minutes of being called. The claimant brought an action based on Ryland’s v Fletcher, nuisance and negligence for damage to its property.
It was held that as the defendant had accumulated things which were a known fire risk, it was liable in Ryland’s v Fletcher. Storage of the flammable items represented a recognisable risk to the claimant and a non-natural user of the land. The defendant was also liable in negligence and nuisance.
successful claim caused by fire
Stannard v Gore
The defendant stored tyres in relation to his tyre fitting business. A fire broke out and rapidly spread, causing damage to the claimant’s adjoining premises. The trial judge found that the defendant was not negligent but was strictly liable to the claimant in Ryland’s v Fletcher.
The judge found that the tyres are not in themselves normally flammable, but they did have a special fire risk 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 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 was 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 defendant has brought some exceptionally dangerous ‘thing’ onto his land, and that 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 a light industrial estate, and was not therefor a non-natural use of the land for the purpose of the rule of Rylands v Fletcher
updated previous precedent
what does rylands v fletcher say about damage caused by fire?
Ward LJ, in Wyvern, concluded that in an appropriate case, damage caused by fire moving from an adjoining property can fall in Rylands v Fletcher but may be rare because:
It is the ‘thing’ which has been brought onto the land that needs to escape, not the fire
A dangerous fire may have been deliberately or negligently started, not brought onto the land.
Starting a fire may be an ordinary use of the land.
fire damage may be difficult to claim
what are the defences for rylands v fletcher
Volenti non fit injuria- consent
Act of a stranger- Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956)
Act of God- Nichols v Marsland (1876)
Statutory authority
Contributory negligence- Law reform (contributory negligence act 1945)
Perry v Kendricks Transport
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. There was a valid defence of an act of a stranger and no liability.
act of a stranger can be a defence
Nicholas v Marsland
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 claimant’s land. There was no liability because the weather conditions were so extreme and amounted to an Act of God.
extreme conditions that no human foresight could provide against can be a defence
what are the remedies for rylands?
As there needs to be damage to property, the cost of repair will be the amount of damages
how does rylands v fletcher align with 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
how has rylands v fletcher developed?
Originally a 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 is foreseeable (Cambridge water)
