Rylands V Fletcher Flashcards
What happened in the case Ryland V Fletcher (1868) Roland’s V Fletcher PowerPoint emailed on 22.10.20
The defendant engaged contractors to build a reservoir on his land. They did not know there were abandoned mine shafts below the land. The weight of water collapsed the mines and the neighbour’s mine was flooded.
There was no negligence and the defendant had selected a competent contractor
The court said that liability was established when the defendant brought and collected something non-natural on his land which was likely to do mischief if it escaped
What are the 4 ingredients PP
- Bringing something onto the land
- Which is likely to do damage if it escapes
- Which is a non natural use of the land
- And the thing did escape and cause foreseeable damage (to adjoining property).
Cases that show thing is likely to do damage if it escapes PP
The thing must have constituted a foreseeable risk if it escaped
In Rylands this was the water
LMS v Styrene Packaging (2005)
Flammable liquid stored in a factory was held to be a foreseeable risk (it caught fire and the escape of fire was liable under R v F).
It was a recognisable risk.
Stannard v Gore (2012)
A garage stored a large number of tyres, these caught fire and the fire escaped. There was no liability under Rylands v Fletcher because the tyres were not a foreseeable fire risk and it was the fire not the tyres which escaped.
Case that shows it must constitute a foreseeable risk if it escapes PP and P130
In the case Transco v Stockport Borough Council (2003)
A high pressure water pipe supplying flats with water leaked and caused an embankment to collapse and exposed a gas pipe which was dangerous.
The water pipe was not held to be a thing likely to do damage and was a normal use of land.
Things the courts have decided can do mischief are gas, poisonous fumes and an occupied chair from a chair-o-plane ride.
Hale V Jennings Bros (1938), chair came detached while in motion and injured a stall holder. One of the only successful cases.
What kind of use of land must it be PP
It must be a non-natural use of land. The defendant will be liable if they make a special use of the land which brings increased danger to others.
What does the previous card depend on
It depends on the times. in Musgrove v Pandelis (1919) keeping a car with petrol in it was considered dangerous and unnatural.
In the case British Celanese V Hunt (1969) the defendants stored strips of metal foil which were used in the manufacturing of electrical components. Some of the strips of foil blew off the defendants land onto an electricity substation, causing a power failure. The court held the use of the land was natural because of the benefit obtained by the local population.
British Celanese V Hunt (1969)
The defendants stored strips of metal foil which were used in the manufacturing of electrical components. Some of the strips of foil blew off the defendants land onto an electricity substation, causing a power failure. The court held the use of the land was natural because of the benefit obtained by the local population.
Case that shows it escaping and causing foreseeable damage PP
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)
A slow leak of chemicals over time seeped through land and polluted water, it was accepted that this risk was not foreseeable.
The court said the tort was strict liability in that there is liability even if they had tried to stop the escape. BUT there is no liability unless the risk is foreseeable in the first place.
Defences to Ryland V Fletcher PP
Consent (volenti) - the defendant may have expressly or implicit consented.
Contributory Negligence - the claimant was partly to blame.
Act of god and acts of a stranger.
Nichols V Marshland (1876) PP
Torrential rain caused an artificial lake to flood and destroy a neighbour’s bridge. The rain was considered to be an Act of God, so the owner of the lake was not liable.
Richards V Lothian (1913) P132
An unknown person turned on water tapes and blocked plug holes on the defendant’s premises, so damage was done in the flat below. The defendant was not liable as the use of domestic water pipes was a natural use of land. How does this relate to a stranger?
Potential FCP PP
Fairness Rickards v Lothian (1913) a stranger blocked a sink outlet and turned taps on full which caused flooding this is fair as the defendant had no way to prevent this loss as it was not under their control
- Certainty Musgrove v Pandelis (1919) keeping a car with petrol in it was considered dangerous the standards of what is considered dangerous change with the times and can be hard to predict (see also British Celanese)
- Policy Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather a slow leak of chemicals was not a foreseeable risk this can be seen as a policy decision as it prevents too many claims in R v F, closing the floodgates
What is a potential reform of the law PP
Remove the restriction that was introduced in Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather, that the risk must have been foreseeable, as this makes it very difficult to hold companies to account for environmental damage.
