Rylands v Fletcher – LIABILITY

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher 💦 🏊

Answer 1

Fletcher owned a coal mine . Ryland built a reservoir. (they were neighbours) The reservoir flooded into an old unused coal mine and went into Fletcher’s coal mine. No evidence of negligence.

Question 2

What was the rule made in Rylands v Fletcher 💦 🏊

Answer 2

“the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.” ..

“not-naturally there”. – Justice Blackburn

(When you use your land for a dangerous cause you must keep it at your peril.)

Question 3

What is strict liability?

Answer 3

One is liable for harm even if that person did not intend the result or were negligent in causing it
AKA a person who adopts a risk ought to be responsible for the result, regardless of that person’s intention
(A loss has to assigned to someone – that’s what the law says)

Question 4

What are some exceptions to strict liability?

Answer 4

• Consent
• Third-party actions
  -Act of God (eg earthquake, typhoon)
  -Statutory Authority

Question 5

Rickards v Lothian [1913] UK 🪠 facts and rule

Answer 5

Facts: An overflow of water from intentionally blocked plumbing – the water escapes. No evidence of negligence or evidence as to who blocked the overflow.

Rule: “It would be wholly unreasonable to hold an occupier responsible for the consequences of such acts which he is powerless to prevent… [where the usage is in the “ordinary and proper matter””] per Lord Moulton.

Question 6

Read v Lyons & co Ltd 🧨 facts and rule

Answer 6

Fats: Ms Read (involuntarily) worked in an explosive factory as an inspector. And explosion injured some people, including her, killing someone else. The explosion doesn’t ‘escape’ the land.

“Escape” for the purpose of applying the proposition in Rylands v Fletcher means escape from a place which the defendant has occupation of, or control over, to a place which is outside his occupation or control.

The natural usage of land has to be considered heavily in light of the context – undermining the very idea of strict liability
(eg in this case because UK was at war this was considered)

Question 7

Nottingham Forest Trustee Ltd v Unison Networks Ltd [2021] ⚡ 🌳

Answer 7

Facts: Nottingham forest manage a pine plantation. In adverse storm conditions a tree may fall to cause a power line outage to a house connected to the power line. It repetitively happens and it will continue to happen unless the trees are cut down. The homeowners would like it to stop and to be compensated.

• Forestry is really common in New Zealand but the point is not whether it is natural for ‘the land’ not just ‘any land’ (context)
• You can do what you want with your land, as long as you pay up when something bad happens
• From a social policy response, this is a bad move, that people need to have boundaries between neighbour to neighbour

Question 8

What are factors relevant to non-natural usage of land?

Answer 8

• Location?
• Time?
• Social context? (eg in a war, in a statute etc)
• Necessity?