Rylands V Fletcher Flashcards
outline
- intro
- parties
- accumulation
- Dangerous thing
- non-natural use of lands
- escape
- Damage
- defences & conclusion
intro - rylands v fletcher
- a person who brings and keeps on his land a dangerous thing in extraordinary and unusual circumstances is strictly liable for damage caused by its escape
- must prove on balance of probabilities.
Parties
- C legal interest in land to pursue claim (Transco V Stockport)
- is D in control on the land on whic the dangerous thing is kept? (Rylands v Fletcher)
acccumulation
d must have brought onto their land the dangerous thing which escapes. Not something which is naturally present -> Giles V Walker -> failed as naturally occurring
Dangerous thing
- the thing bought and kept on D’s land must pose an exceptionally high risk of danger/damage if it were to escape (Rylands) (Hale v Jenkins = dangerous -> Transco v Stockport -> domestic water supply not exceptional risk -> not dangerous)
dangerous thing - damage by fire
- thing that fuels fire must be dangerous not fire itself
- Stannard V Gore (not exceptionally dangerous -> ordinary on light industrial estate)
- BUT.. if material stored poses a known fire risk liability may arise (LMS International v Styrene)
Non-natural use of land
Is use of land extraordinary and unusual?
- ‘special use bringing with it an increased danger to others’ -. rickards v Lothian
- transco v stockport -> ordinary user
- certain activities may always lead to a potential level of danger, amounting to non-natural use of land -> storage of industrial chemicals (Cambridge water V Eastern Counties Leather)
- non-natural use also includes storage of things in large quantities/unnatural amounts (Rylands V Fletcher)
escape
- that D doesnt control
- Rylands v fletcher -Yes
- Read v Lyons - no
damage
the escaping thing must cause reasonably foreseeable damage
= Cambridge Water v Eastern counties Leather - too remote
- C must show damage/destruction of property and can recover the cost of repair or replacement -> PI not recoverable
conclusion/defences
- Act of a stranger
- Act of God
- Statutory authority
- Volenti non fit injuria -
- Contributory negligence
Act of God
natural event so enormous that it cannot be forseen nor guarded agaiinst (Nichols V Marsland -> prolonged and violent storm)
Act of a stranger
deliberate + unforseen act of a stranger (Perry V Kendricks -> NL)
Statutory authority
-> not liable for escape during activities authorised by an AofP (Green V Chelsea Waterworks)
Volenti non fit injuria
> NL if C consented to the thing that is accumulated by D -> peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
contributory negligence
c partly responsible -> dammages reduced to exten of C’s fault
