Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher - form of strict liability

Answer 1

cause of action which protects an occupier land against interference due to an isolated escape from neighbours land

Question 2

Four Ingredients

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

D brings on his land for his own purpose something likely to do mischief

Answer 3

requires voluntary act - Giles v Walker

something likely to do mischief 
- water (Rylands)
- electricity (national telephone) 
- explosives (rain ham) 
oil (Mulholland)
- vibrations (Hoare)

Question 4

Transco

Answer 4

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

Question 5

If it escapes

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Non-natural user

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Foreseeability of damage

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Who can sue

Answer 8

only those with interest in land

Cambridge water, Transco, Hunter v Canary Wharf

Question 9

Who can be sued

Answer 9

occupier of land will be liable if he satisfies the requirement for a cause of action

Question 10

Defences

Claimants default

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Unforeseeable act of a stranger

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Act of God

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Statutory Authority

Answer 13

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

Question 14

Consent

Answer 14

relates to thing that have a common purpose - e.d gutter in house for drainage

Question 15

Remedies

Answer 15

Injunctions are likely to be used since Rylands concerns isolated escapes