rylands v fletcher cases Flashcards
Rylands V Fletcher
Established the Rylands V Fletcher Test.
Giles V Walker
If the thing is naturally present then there is no liability.
Ellison V Ministry of Defence
If the thing naturally accumulates on the land there is no liability.
Transco V Stockport Metropolitan BC
The damage cannot be personal injury.
Hale V Jennings Bro
The type of damage has to be foreseeable, not the escape.
Stannard Wyvern Tyres V Gore
Fire cases are rare because 1: It is the thing which had been brought onto the land which must escape not the fire which was started or increased by the thing, 2: The fire must have been deliberately or negligently started by the occupier or one whom he is responsible for and 3: Starting a fire on one’s land may be an ordinary use of land.
Rickards V Lothian
“It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and not merely by the ordinary use of land or such as is proper for the general benefit of the community” - Lord Moulton
Musgrove V Pandelis
Technological and social changes need to be considered.
Cambridge Water Co. V Eastern Counties Leather
Storage of chemicals at a factory is non-natural.
Mason v Levy Autoparts
Storage of things in large quantities can be non-natural.
British Celanese v Hunt
Social utility.
Read V Lyons
stating that D can only be liable if it escapes from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control.
