Rylands vs Fletcher

Question 1

Rylands vs Fletcher definition/intro

Answer 1

Where the D brings something onto their land and stores it there. It escapes and causes damage to the claimants land. This is a strict liability offence so there s no defence just because the D acted with care and attention. There are five stages to prove.

Question 2

Rylands vs fetcher stage 1

Answer 2

-Firstly, there must be the bringing of a dangerous thing onto the the land, which must accumulate on the D’s land.
- The D must bring something hazardous onto their land and keep it there. If it is naturally present, such as weeds in the case of (Giles vs Walker), it is not an accumulation.
- The thing must be accumulated for the D’s own purpose (Dunne vs North West Gas Board)
-Side rule- the thing that escapes does not need to be the thing accumulated (By product)

Question 3

Stage 2 of Rylands vs Fletcher

Answer 3

• The thing the D brings onto the land must be likely to cause mischief if it escapes. It is a test of foreseeability- the damage must be foreseeable if the thing escaped, not that the thing itself is inherently dangerous (Hale vs Jenning Bros)

Question 4

Stage 3 Rylands vs Fletcher

Answer 4

• Thirdly, the thing stored must escape from a place that the D had occupation of, or control over, to a place which is outside of his or her occupation or control (Read vs Lyons)

Question 5

Stage 4 of Rylands vs Fletcher

Answer 5

Fourthly, there must be a non-natural use of the land which means D has brought something onto the property that was not naturally there. Transco defined non natural use as a use which is” extraordinary and unusual” or as a “special use bringing increase danger to others”. This can be due to quantity, volume, and place where it is stored.

Question 6

Stage 5 of Rylands vs Fletcher

Answer 6

Finally, the damage must be of a foreseeable type and bot too remote (Cambridge water). If the D cannot predict it, they cannot prevent it.

Question 7

Defences for Rylands vs Fletcher

Answer 7

• Acts of a third party- If not able to reasonably foresee actions of third party ( Perry vs Kendricks)
• Act of God- Natural causes that no human foresight could guard against (Greenock)
  -Statutory authority
• Default of C- act of the C
• Consent from C

Question 8

Remedies for Rylands vs Fletcher

Answer 8

-Compensatory damages
- Side rule- Transco vs Stockport- personal injury cannot be claimed for under RvF
- Side rule- economic loss (Weller vs Foot and Mouth disease research institute- No liability for pure economic loss.