Rylands V Fletcher Flashcards
What is liability under Rylands v Fletcher regarded as?
A particular type of nuisance.
Can a defendant be liable under Rylands v Fletcher without being negligent?
Yes, Rylands v Fletcher allows for liability even without negligence.
What type of offences in criminal law is similar to liability under Rylands v Fletcher?
Strict Liability offences.
What incident led to the liability in the case of Rylands v Fletcher?
The construction of a reservoir that leaked water into a working mine, causing damage.
What is required for a defendant to be strictly liable for damages under Rylands v Fletcher?
A non-natural use of land.
Summarize Lord Cranworth’s statement on liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
If a person brings something onto their land that could harm a neighbor if it escapes, they are responsible for any damage, regardless of care taken.
What must C show to prove liability under Rylands v Fletcher?
- Accumulation on the defendant’s land
- A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes
- Escape
- Non-natural use of land
- The damage must not be too remote.
What does accumulation refer to in Rylands v Fletcher?
The defendant must bring and keep the hazardous material on their land.
What did the case of Miles v Forest Rock Granite (1918) establish?
Liability can arise from escape due to an accumulated thing, even if the escaping thing was not purposefully brought onto the land.
Can a thing that is naturally occurring on the land lead to liability under Rylands v Fletcher?
No, if the thing was already on the land or is naturally occurring, there is no liability.
What was the outcome of the case concerning Sam’s mudslide affecting Sally’s property?
It raises the question of whether Sally can claim for damages from Sam under Rylands v Fletcher.
What must a thing do to be considered likely to cause mischief if it escapes?
It need not be inherently hazardous, only capable of causing damage if it escapes.
What requires an escape under Rylands v Fletcher?
There must be a physical escape from the defendant’s land.
What does the case Read v Lyons (1947) illustrate about the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
Liability requires that the hazardous material must escape from the defendant’s land.
What is meant by non-natural use of land in the context of Rylands v Fletcher?
The use of land must be extraordinary or unusual, rather than ordinary.
In Rickards v Lothian (1913) what was established regarding non-natural use?
The defendants were not liable as the damage was caused by a wrongful act of a third party and not a non-natural use.
What did Lord Bingham rule about ordinary user in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council?
Ordinary user is preferable to natural user; liability engages only with extraordinary or unusual use.
What does the concept of remoteness of damage refer to in Rylands v Fletcher?
Liability is limited to damage that is not too remote and must be reasonably foreseeable.
What was the significance of the Cambridge Water case regarding foreseeability?
Foreseeability is essential for liability; damage must be reasonably foreseeable to establish liability.
What defenses exist under Rylands v Fletcher?
- Wrongful act of a third party
- Acts of God
- Statutory authority.
What was the holding in Nichols v Marsland (1876) regarding acts of God?
The defendant was not liable as the flooding was caused by an act of God.
What did the case Charing Cross Electric Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co (1914) illustrate about statutory authority?
The defense of statutory authority failed as there was no obligation to maintain the water main under high pressure.
What does the defense of consent entail in Rylands v Fletcher?
If the claimant benefits from the accumulated thing, they may be deemed to have consented to the accumulation.
How does Rylands v Fletcher address complex liability issues?
It allows for liability without negligence, which has raised concerns about its effectiveness.
