Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

when may C bring an action against D under the tort of RvF

Answer 1

when there is an escape of dangerous things

Question 2

what did Blackburn J say in RvF in regards to liability under the tort

Answer 2

anyone who brings onto his land and keeps there something that is likely to do mischief if it escapes, is answerable for all damage which is a natural consequence of its escape, if it does do so

Question 3

what 6 factors must be present

Answer 3

1. non-natural use
2. increased danger
3. industrial use
4. dangerous on escape
5. damage foreseeable
6. moves

Question 4

what 2 cases applied non- natural use factor

Answer 4

 Giles v Walker- weeds- must be brought onto the land and no liability for something that arises naturally per Lord Cairns
 Transco v Southport Council- supply of water to storage tanks natural

Question 5

what case applied to increased danger

Answer 5

Rickards v Lothian- likely to be non-natural if brings increased danger

Question 6

what case applied to industrial use

Answer 6

 British Celanese v Hunt- not acceptable in residential area but is in industrial one

Question 7

what case applied to dangerous on escape

Answer 7

 Rylands v Fletcher- water escaping from reservoir- thing does not need to be dangerous in itself just upon escape

Question 8

what case applied to damage foreseeable

Answer 8

 Cambridge Water v EC leather- water pollution- must be foreseeable

Question 9

what case applied thing must move from one persons control to another

Answer 9

 Read v Lyons- shells did not escape from munitions factory

Question 10

what defence applies to RvF and the case this applied to

Answer 10

o Perry v Kendricks- act of a stranger

Question 11

what did lords consider in Transco v Southport Council

Answer 11

considered abolishing Rylands but decided against it because it might have affected the drafting of previous statutes

Question 12

what did they say in the case

Answer 12

• “It is perhaps not surprising that counsel could not find a reported case since 1939 – 45 war in which anyone had succeeded in a claim under the rule. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the intellectual effort devoted to the rule by judges and writers over many years has brought forth a mouse!”

Question 13

Act of god defence

Answer 13

Nichols v marsland

Question 14

Transco changed test to what

Answer 14

Foreseeability test- D only liable if he recognised or ought to have recognised that and exceptionally high risk of danger if it escapes

Question 15

Interference must be substantial case

Answer 15

Walter v Selfe

Question 16

Locality has accentuated the inequalities in society as those in poor areas are expected to cope with more interferences, as in what case

Answer 16

Baxter v Camden

Question 17

What did denfield say

Answer 17

Balance must be maintained between Ds freedom to use his land and C to not be subject to unreasonable interferences

Question 18

Only liable for any for foreseeable damage caused by escape case

Answer 18

Cambridge waterworks v EC leather

Question 19

Sensitivity is irrelevant case

Answer 19

Network rail

Question 20

Originating case of proprietary interest in land

Answer 20

Malone v laskey

Question 21

Statutory authority defence case

Answer 21

Farmworth

Question 22

Who lays down when courts should award damages in lieu of an injunction

Answer 22

Shelfer

Question 23

Potential breach of art 8 due to requiring proprietary interest case

Answer 23

McKenna

Question 24

RvF formally incorporated into nuisance in OZ what does atiyah say

Answer 24

Action is obsolete and it’s hard to rationalise as it remains more of an interesting piece of legal history than any practical importance