Rylands v Fletcher A01 Flashcards
Rylands v Fletcher
Strict liability land-based tort
Claimant must have…. (case)
Some interest in the land - Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research
Defendant must be… (case)
Occupier
+
Have control over the land
Smith v Scott
5 part test
- bring onto land
- anything non-natural
- likely to do mischief
- and it escapes
- causes damage
Brings onto land
Something that doesn’t naturally occur
Brings onto land - Giles v Walker
Naturally occurring thistles = not sufficient
Brings onto land - Crowhurst v Amersham
Defendant plants something (in this case yew trees) this will satisfy bring onto land
Non-natural use - Richards v Lothain
older case (law has changed with Cambridge)
tap leaking and causing flooding was held as ordinary use of the land so the claim failed on non-natural
Non-natural use - Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
-widened the definition of non-natural
-said the storage of chemicals on industrial land was non-natural use
non-natural use - Transco plc v Stockport
- council flats’ water pipes bursting was a natural use of land as the water was for domestic use
Likely to do mischief
It must be foreseeable that the thing brought onto land is likely to cause mischief IF it escapes.
Mischief - the escape itself…
doesn’t have to be foreseeable
(likely to cause mischief IF it escapes)
Escape (case)
The thing brought onto land itself must escape from the defendant’s land onto the claimants land - Read v Lyons
Escape - Stannard v Gore
If the thing sets on fire and it is the fire that escapes, this is not sufficient
Damage
-The escape must cause damage
-The normal rules of causation apply and the damage must be reasonable foreseeable
