Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
Rylands v Fletcher - form of strict liability
cause of action which protects an occupier land against interference due to an isolated escape from neighbours land
Four Ingredients
- D brings on his land for his own purpose something likely to do mischief
- if it escapes
- Non-natural user
- Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type
D brings on his land for his own purpose something likely to do mischief
requires voluntary act - Giles v Walker
something likely to do mischief - water (Rylands) - electricity (national telephone) - explosives (rain ham) oil (Mulholland) - vibrations (Hoare)
Transco
Ld Bingham - requirements are not easily satisfied
D must:
- do something which he recognised, or to have reasonably recognised
- exceptionally high risk of danger if there should be escape
Stannard - tyres - deemed not likely to do mischief in itself
If it escapes
proof of actual damage is required
Read v Lyon - HOL: object must move from D premises outside of their occupational control
Charing Cross - COA said the thing doesn’t have to escape from land actually owed by D
Non-natural user
Rickards v Lothian - a type of special use that bought with it increased danger to others it goes beyond the ordinary
Transco - HL says use of land must be extraordinary and unusual
Foreseeability of damage
Cambridge Water - HL D was not liable here because it was not foreseeable to the skilled person
- D used chemical to wash grease off leather, overtime it seeped into the ground and contaminated claimants water supply nearly a mile away
- it was not foreseeable to the skilled person
- only damage needs to be foreseeable not escape
Transco - escape need not be foreseeable only damage
Northumburian - D examined site before beginning work. D poured concrete onto site satisfied that there was nothing below but there was a sill and it became blocked.
- COA said there was no liability the damage caused was not foreseeable the contractors did all that was reasonable
Who can sue
only those with interest in land
Cambridge water, Transco, Hunter v Canary Wharf
Who can be sued
occupier of land will be liable if he satisfies the requirement for a cause of action
Defences
Claimants default
valid defence if the escape was wholly or partly the claimants fault
Ponting v Noakes - C horse died after eating leaves of a poisonous tree growing on D’s land
- D was not liable because death was the horses fault and there was no escape
Unforeseeable act of a stranger
Box v Jubb - D not liable where the escape was caused by actions of third party
Rickards - third party went onto premises blocked the plug hole of sink and they flooded and flowed to C’s property
- D had valid defence they could not have known the third party would block the sinks and turn on the tabs
North Western - third party act must be unforeseeable
- it was foreseeable that third party work near the gas main might cause damage and therefore the defence failed there
Act of God
escape due to natural causes
Nichols v Marsland - D has ornamental pools on his land after heavy rain they collapsed and flood washed away four bridges
- COA said D could rely on the nature as a defence he could not have anticipated act of nature
Statutory Authority
Green v Chelsea - D had statutory authority to maintain water supply - it had implicit authority which they could rely on if there was an escape
Charing Cross - there was a clause in the statute that said it will not exclude rylands liability and D was liable
Consent
relates to thing that have a common purpose - e.d gutter in house for drainage
Remedies
Injunctions are likely to be used since Rylands concerns isolated escapes
