Rylands V Fletcher

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 1

Reservoir damaged mines

Tort strict liability (no negligence required)

1. Accumulation
2. A thing likely to do mischief
3. Escape
4. Non-natural land use
5. Damage not too remote

Question 2

Miles v Forest Rock Granite

Answer 2

Blasting rocks, highway

The thing that escapes need not be the thing accumulated - explosives = accumulated, caused rocks to escape

Question 3

Transco v Stockport

Answer 3

Water build up

The ‘thing’ does not have to be hazardous itself, it only needs to cause damage if it escapes

> water, oil, gas etc

Question 4

Read v Lyons

Answer 4

Explosives factory

There must be an escape from D’s land

Escape onto the land itself does not grant liability under RvF

Question 5

Rickards v Lothian

Answer 5

Blocked sinks

Having and using sinks is not a non-natural use of land

> only when something is unusual and extraordinary

Question 6

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

Answer 6

Leather tanning

Damage cannot be too remote

Foreseeability of damage applies in the same way as to negligence via the Wagon Mound No.1 case

Question 7

Perry v Kendricks Transport

Answer 7

Match, petrol tank

Defence - act of third party

Defendant will not be liable if escape is caused by an act of a third party

Question 8

Nichols v Marsland

Answer 8

Heavy rain, lake overflowing

Defence - act of god

Effect of an extraordinary act of nature, such as extremely heavy rainfall not seen before in that area means there is no liability

Question 9

Charing Cross v Hydraulic Power Co

Answer 9

Water main burst

Defence - stupors authority

Can only use defence of statutory authority if a statute makes D under obligation to act, not if it only grants them the right to do something

Question 10

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

Answer 10

Burst, icy sprinklers

Defence - consent or benefit

If C receives a benefit from the thing accumulated, they may be deemed to have consented to that accumulation