rylands v fletcher Flashcards
explain the case of Rylands v Fletcher
F:D in Rylands, a mill owner, had paid independent contractors to make a reservoir on his land, which was intended to supply water to the mill. during construction, the contractors discovered the shafts and passages of an old coal mine on the land. some of which joined up with a mine situated on neighbouring land belonging to the claimant. contractors could have blocked up the shafts but didnt as a result when the reservoir was filled with water from it burst through and flooded the mine.
H: the defendant was liable in tort upholding the judgement delivered in the lower court in blackburn J which defined the rule: ‘an occupier of land who brings on to it and keeps there anything likely to damage (mischief) should it escape will be liable for damage caused by such an escape’
in rylands v fletcher had the defendant been negligent
D hadn’t been negligent because there was no way he could have known about the shafts
in rylands v fletcher could their be a claim in negligence against the contractors
Not VL for the contractors who were clearly not his employees
in rylands who can sue
the claimant must have some interest in the land on to which the thing escaped
in rylands who can be sued
the defendant must control the land
explain the case of Smith v Scott
F: a local authority lent a house to a homeless family in condition that they promised not to make any trouble this promise was disregarded by the family once they moved in and their behaviour was so intolerable that their next door neighbour tried to sue the local authority on the basis of Rylands v Fletcher.
H: Rule could not be applied to the landlords of the tenants as control of the land would lie with the tenants
what is considered a dangerous thing
something likely to do damage is considered to be a dangerous thing e.g. gas, electricity, poisionous fumes, a falgpole, tree branches, chemicals, fire, chair-o-plane
explain the case of Hale v Jennings
F: the mountings on a chair-o-plane at a fair ground were tampered with by an unknown person. the chair-o-plane complete with passenger became detatched and landed on a tombola stall causing injury to the occupant
H: a ‘dangerous thing’ can consist of many and varied items, in this case it was dangerous.
what did Lord Bingham say in the case of Transco
“a dangerous thing is one which poses an exceptional risk if it escapes”
what was held in Giles v Walker about non-natural use
thistles were held to be a natural use of land
what was held in Rickards v Lothian about non-natural use
leaving a tap running was held to be a natural use
explain the case of Cambridge water v eastern counties leather
F:D’s had carried out a leather manufactory business for many years. In tanning a particular type of chemical solvent was used until 1976 when they changed the method. in the old process the tan was spilt onto the factory floor over years which seeped through into the soil below and polluted an area owned by the water company. C’s had sold water to cambridge water residents after testing purity. an eu directive forbid water containing this chemical to be sold. C’s then discovered chemical which was higher than the permitted dose. they claimed the cost of relocating the well.
H: Ian Kennedy J. dismissed the claim holding that there was no liability under rylands v fletcher since the defendants use of its land was not “non-natural”
storage of chemicals on an industiral premises was a ‘classic case of non-natural use’. Just because the activity benefitted the community in that it created employment it didnt render such use of land natural.
explain the case of Transco
F: D owned a water pipe which carried water from the mains to a large block of flats the pipe fractured and huge amounts of water ran along the embankment which contained c’s gas pipeline. embankment collapsed leaving the gas pipeline unsupported.
H: ‘unnatural user’ wasn’t helpful- who is an ordinary user is better
what did Lord bingham say was an unnatural use of land
‘a use maybe extraordinary and unusual at one time or in one place, but not so at another time or in another place’
what is an extraordinary and unusual test
D has done something out of the ordinary, considering the time and place in which he did so.
explain the case of read v lyons
F: the claimant was employed in the defendants munitions factory and was injured when a shell exploded in the factory.
H: D’s not liable on the grounds that although they were dangerous there was no escape. Escape occurs when something outside a place where D has occupation and control
explain the case of Gore v Stannard
F: a fire started on the D’s land and spread to the C’s. The D stored tyres on his premises.
H: the dangerous thing accumulated must escape not the result. it wasnt the tyres that escaped but the fire, so the principle doesn’t apply to this case.
‘liability under rylands v fletcher will arise only if the thing accumulated escapes ,with the result that. if the thing accumulated, but not the thing accumulated escapes there will be no liability.
what is the strict liability in rylands
the damage is reasonably forseeable
explain the defence of contributory negligence
where a claimant contributes to causing the escape of a dangerous thing their damages can be reduced under the normal rules of contributory negligence
explain the defence of volenti
consent to the dangerous thing being on the claimants land is a defence, and such consent can be implied or express
explain the defence of statutory authority
Defendants may escape liability under rylands v fletcher if the terms of a relevant statute clearly authorites their actions. however many acts which permit the performance of dangerous activities do not specify whether the rule should apply and the question then becomes one of interpretation of the particular statute.
explain the case of Green v chelsea waterworks co
F: a water main laid by the defendant burst flooding the claimants premises
H: CA held that the company weren’t liable because they weren’t permitted but obliged that statute to maintain a water supply and occasional bursts were an inevitable result of such a duty
explain the defence of an act of a stranger
a defendant won’t be liable where the damage is done by a third party who isn’t acting under the defendant’s instructions e.g. hale v jennings
explain the defence of an act of god
this defence is available when the escape is caused purely by natural forces in the circumstances which the defendants could not have been expected to forsee or guard against.
explain the case of Nichols v marsland
F: the defendant had 3 artificial lakes made on his land by damning a natural stream a heavy thunder storm accompanied with unprecedented rain caused the banks of the lakes to burst and water to destroy four bridges on the claimants land the whole thing was well-built and precautions were adequate for all normal circumstances
H: D wasn’t liable because thunderstorm was an act of god which could not reasonably be expected to predict
