Rylands V Fletcher

Question 1

what is Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 1

where the escape of non-naturally stored materials onto adjoining property damages or destroys that property.

Question 2

is Rylands v fletcher a case or a tort?

Answer 2

Rylands v Fletcher is a tort in its own right.

Question 3

what are the requirements for action in Rylands v fletcher?

Answer 3

• accumulation on the defendant’s land
• a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes
• escape
• non-natural uses of land
• damage that is not too remote

Question 4

accumulation

Answer 4

1. ) The defendant must bring a hazardous thing onto their land to keep it there. Giles v Walker [1890]
2. ) the thing must be accumulated for the defendant’s own purpose. Dunn v North West Gas Board [1964]
3. ) the thing that escapes need not be accumulated. Miles v Forest Rock Granite [1981]

Question 5

1.) Accumulation - Giles v Walker

Answer 5

D had not brought the thistles onto his land, and there can be no liability for a thing which naturally accumulates on land.

Question 6

2.) Accumulation - Dunne v North West Gas Board

Answer 6

The gas board had not accumulated gas for its own purposed. D was liable.

Question 7

3.) Accumulation - Miles v Forest Rock Granite

Answer 7

The explosives were accumulated and caused the rocks to escape.

Question 8

A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes

Answer 8

the thing need not be hazardous. it only needs to cause damage it it escapes e.g. Shifman v The Grand Priory St John

Question 9

Shifman v The Grand Priory St John

Answer 9

this amounted to an escape

Question 10

TranCo v Stockport [2004]

Answer 10

Lord Hoffman: “[Cambridge v Water] decided that Rylands v Fletcher is a special form of a nuisance … which decides that nuisance is the tort against the land … personal injuries are not recoverable under the rule.”

Question 11

Escape

Answer 11

• there must be an escape from d’s land
• an injury inflicted by the accumulation of the hazard substance of the land itself will not invoke liability e.g. Read V Lyons

Question 12

Read v Lyons

Answer 12

there was no escape - explosive killed a man, no evidence that negligence caused the explosion.

Question 13

escape - British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd

Answer 13

judge said that the escape should be ‘from a set of circumstances over which the defendant has control to a circumstances where he does not’

Question 14

non-natural use of land

Answer 14

• ‘extraordinary and unusual’ e.g. Transco v Stockport [2004]

Question 15

Transco v Stockport [2004]

Answer 15

Although strictly speaking they are not natural, in this day they are not extraordinary or unusual. D not liable.

Question 16

Remoteness of damage

Answer 16

no liability for pure economic loss (this is the LP) e.g. Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966].

Question 17

Defences

Answer 17

• Act of a stranger
• Act of God
• Statutory Authority
• Consent/benefit

Question 18

Act of a stranger

Answer 18

D has a complete defense if the escape was caused by a stranger over the D had no control over and the actions could not have been reasonably foreseen. e.g. Perry v Kendrick Transport Ltd in contrast to Ribee v Norrie

Question 19

Perry v Kendrick Transport Ltd

Answer 19

an occupant of the land cannot be held liable under the rule if the act bringing about the escape was the act of a stranger

Question 20

Ribee v Norrie

Answer 20

it was within the power of D to prohibit smoking in the property, so he had control over the third party’s actions. finish on pg 146