Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
Rylands v Fletcher
When a defendant brings onto his land and accumulates there anything that is likely to do mischief should it escape, must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage that is the natural consequence of the escape
Independent contractors had constructed a reservoir on the defendant’s land that flooded the claimant’s mineshaft when water escaped
Transco v Stockport Metropolitan
Must have a legal interest in the land to sue
Can only claim property damage
Must be the thing brought onto the land that causes the damage - pipes would not do mischief if they escaped
Non-natural user = extraordinary and unusual
Hunter v Canary Wharf
Owner, occupier and creator of the nuisance can be sued
Giles v Walker
Defendant must accumulate something that is not naturally on his land - self-sown thistles were naturally on defendant’s land
Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guano
Acid is likely to do mischief if it escapes - actionable under Rylands
Read v Lyons
Explosives are likely to do mischief if they escape - actionable under Rylands
Must be an escape from the defendant’s land to the claimant’s
Must be a non-natural user of land (explosives factory was a natural user of land in WWII)
AG v Cork
Gypsies are actionable under Rylands
Stannard v Gore
Defendants had tyres on their land which spread a fire to the claimant’s land - although the fire spread, the tyre (thing brought on to land and accumulated) had not
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
Do not have to foresee that the thing would escape, only that it would cause mischief were it to do so
RIckards v Lothian
Non-natural user of land = brings increased danger to others and not ordinary use of land
Blocked wash basin was ordinary use of land
Defendant may escape liability for actions of a third party depending on knowledge and ability to mitigate damage
Smeaton v Ilford
Statutory authority can work as a defence
Colour Quest v Total Downstream UK
Consent does not apply where escape is due to negligence
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
Claimant and defendant shared sprinkler system which damaged claimant’s land - cannot complain of a thing from which the claimant derives a mutual benefit
Dunn v Birmingham
Claimant had dug into there land and caused the canal water to escape - default of claimant acts as complete defence (contrib negligence also available)
