Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
What other land-related torts does Rylands v Fletcher stand alongside?
Trespass.
Nuisance.
*Rylands v Fletcher.
Why should we be considering Rylands v Fletcher at the moment?
The Australian court has brought the rule in Rylands v Fletcher under the law of negligence in Burnie Port Authority.
What is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
If a person accumulates a dangerous substance on his land, he does so at his peril.
If it escapes and causes damage, he is responsible no matter how careful he might have been and whatever precautions he may have taken (ultra strict liability).
Blackburn J.
Why was Transco v Stockport different?
It was deemed that no special hazard was created.
Lord Bingham said that the council was not accumulating water, but was arranging a water supply.
Lord Hoffmann - there was no unordinary risk on the part of the council, all buildings are supplied with water in the same way.
What is the modern formulation of Rylands v Fletcher from Transco?
- D has brought onto their land,
- An exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing.
- In extraordinary or unusual circumstances.
- The extraordinary substance escapes onto C’s land.
- The kind of damage caused is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of escape (very important).
- C will be entitled to sue D for compensation for that damage unless D can raise a defence.
What did Lord Macmillan say about Rylands v Fletcher in Read v Lyons? Is this still an important consideration?
- The rule is about the mutual duties of adjoining or neighbouring landowners.
These duties still exist.
- There has to be an escape.
Why was there no liability in Read v Lyons?
There has to be an escape and the bomb went off on the defendant’s land, there was no escape.
Furthermore, damages are not available for injury to the person - Murphy believes that there should be (probably rightly).
What is an inherently dangerous substance?
This is a question of context.
Water was dangerous in Rylands v Fletcher, but elsewhere is not normally a worry.
What amounts to a non-natural use of land?
Lord Goff gives us a paradigmatic case in Cambridge Water - storage of substantial amounts of chemicals.
How useful are paradigm cases??
Why is there an issue with foreseeability?
The requirement is that it is foreseeable that the claimant may be harmed by the escape.
Not that the escape itself was foreseeable.
So D could have asked if C has a mine on their land, and C wants to keep it secret so says no and then sues D for damages and D will be liable.
There should be a self-protection defense!
What are the four defences?
- Act of a stranger - the event was caused by a person whom D could not control.
- Act of God - an earthquake etc.
- Fault of the claimant.
- Volenti - C consented to the dangerous thing.
What is the Future of Rylands v Fletcher? Why might it still be useful?
Statutory regimes can protect land in all sorts of ways.
However, it is beneficial to have a flexible test for events which may not have been considered by Parliament.
Why is D often better placed to bear the cost?
D is best placed to control the danger.
D may be making money out of their activity.
What does Voyiakis say about self-protection?
D should be liable when they control a resource in a way that creates serious risks for others who cannot self-protect adequately, and the risk materialises.
What are the two key questions relating to Rylands v Fletcher?
Is it a historical anachronism (overhang)?
Is it principled and independent from other land-related torts?
