SECTION B: Rylands vs Fletcher [COMPLETE] Flashcards
Rylands v Fletcher [1868]
State the facts, the held and what Lord Cranworth said.
Facts: The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage.
Held – The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non-natural use of land.
Lord Cranworth: “If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.
The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher. What would make the defendant liable?
D is liable if:
- On his land, he accumulates a dangerous thing in the course of a non natural use of that land and the thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage.
The claimant must have a private nuisance.
What does the plaintiff have to show in Rylands v Fletcher?
- The thing was brought on and accumulated on the defendant’s land – (The Charing Cross Case, Giles v Walker)
- The thing escaping causes damage and, in this instance, note the position regarding the escape of fire under Stannard v Gore
- The thing will be likely to cause mischief if it escapes – Hale v Jennings Bros, Stannard v Gore
- There must be an escape but this can be either from land over which the defendant has control (Read v Lyons) or from circumstances over which the defendant has control – Transco, British Celanese v Hunt, Hale v Jennings
- The thing escaping must cause damage
- The damage must be foreseeable – Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather, Transco
The tort requires the plaintiff to establish:
A non-natural use of the land, e.g. Rickards v Lothian, Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
An escape of the thing brought onto the land, e.g. Read v Lyons and Co.ltd
Damage caused by the escape, e.g. Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
Claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land affected. E.g. Hunter v Canary Wharf
Defendant is the occupier on whose land the mischief has accumulated
What counts as a non natural use for Rylands v Fletcher? 2 cases
Means a use that is not common place - doesn’t necessarily have to be artifical.
Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263 Privy Council - The claimant ran a business from the second floor of a building. The defendant owned the building and leased different parts to other business tenants. An unknown person had blocked all the sinks in the lavatory on the fourth floor and turned on all the taps in order to cause a flood. This damaged the claimant’s stock and the claimant brought an action based on the principle set out in Rylands v Fletcher.
Held – The defendants were not liable. The act which caused the damage was a wrongful act by a third party and there was no non-natural use of land. A tap supplied by a pipe was an ordinary and reasonable use of a building.
The defendant owned a leather tanning business. Spillages of small quantities of solvents occurred over a long period of time which seeped through the floor of the building into the soil below. These solvents made their way to the borehole owned by the Claimant water company.The boreholewas used for supplying water to local residents. The water was contaminated at a level beyond that which was considered safe and Cambridge Water had to cease using the borehole. Cambridge Water brought actions based on negligence, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Held – Eastern Counties Leather were not liable as the damage was too remote. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the spillages would result in the closing of the borehole. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance and claims based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in the same way as it applies to claims based in negligence. The Wagon Mound No 1 case applies to determine remoteness of damage. Although D won the case on remoteness the House of Lords stated that the bulk storage of chemicals to be used in an industrial process was almost the classic example of a non-natural use.
What is an escape?
There must be an escape from the defendant’s land.
Must have moved from land D controls to land that he does not
An injury inflicted by the accumulation of a hazardous substanceon the land itself will not invoke liability under Rylands v Fletcher:
Read v Lyons [1947] AC 156 House of Lords
The claimant was employed by the defendant in their factory which made explosives for the Ministry of Supply. During the course of her employment an explosion occurred which killed a man and injured others including the claimant. There was no evidence that negligence had caused the explosion.
Held – At trial the judge held that the case was governed by the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and liability was therefore strict. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher required an escape of the hazardous matter. The claimant appealed. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. In the absence of any proof of negligence on behalf of the defendant or an escape of dangerous thing, there was no cause of action on which the claimant could succeed.
What is an escape
There must be an escape from the defendant’s land.
Must have moved from land D controls to land that he does not
An injury inflicted by the accumulation of a hazardous substanceon the land itself will not invoke liability under Rylands v Fletcher:
Read v Lyons [1947] AC 156 House of Lords
The claimant was employed by the defendant in their factory which made explosives for the Ministry of Supply. During the course of her employment an explosion occurred which killed a man and injured others including the claimant. There was no evidence that negligence had caused the explosion.
Held – At trial the judge held that the case was governed by the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and liability was therefore strict. The Court of Appeal reversed this decision as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher required an escape of the hazardous matter. The claimant appealed. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. In the absence of any proof of negligence on behalf of the defendant or an escape of dangerous thing, there was no cause of action on which the claimant could succeed.
Reasonably foreseeable damage 1 cdase
Only damage that is reasonably foreseeable is recoverable
Liabilityin Rylands v Fletcher is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage.
This point was established in the Cambridge Water case:
The defendant owned a leather tanning business. Spillages of small quantities of solvents occurred over a long period of time which seeped through the floor of the building into the soil below. These solvents made their way to the borehole owned by the Claimant water company.The boreholewas used for supplying water to local residents. The water was contaminated at a level beyond that which was considered safe and Cambridge Water had to cease using the borehole. Cambridge Water brought actions based on negligence, nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Held – Eastern Counties Leather were not liable as the damage was too remote. It was not reasonably foreseeable that the spillages would result in the closing of the borehole. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance and claims based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in the same way as it applies to claims based in negligence. The Wagon Mound No 1 case applies to determine remoteness of damage. Although D won the case on remoteness the House of Lords stated that the bulk storage of chemicals to be used in an industrial process was almost the classic example of a non-natural use.
accumlation
D must voluntarily bring onto his land an accumulation of the substance that escaped
Includes artificial accumulation
But if the thing is already on the land or is there naturally (like a lake), no liability will arise under Rylands v Fletcher
Giles v Walker (1890)
Seeds from some thistles on the defendant’s land blew into neighbouring land owned by the claimant and damaged his crops.
Held – The defendant was not liable as he had not brought the thistles onto his land and there can not be liability under Rylands v Fletcherfor a thing which naturally accumulates on land.
NB This point of law was doubted in Leakey v National Trust
defences - act of stranger
if the escape was caused by the act of a stranger over which the defendant has no control, the defendant will escape liability:
rickards v lothian The claimant ran a business from the second floor of a building. The defendant owned the building and leased different parts to other business tenants. An unknown person had blocked all the sinks in the lavatory on the fourth floor and turned on all the taps in order to cause a flood. This damaged the claimant’s stock and the claimant brought an action based on the principle set out in Rylands v Fletcher.
Held – The defendants were not liable. The act which caused the damage was a wrongful act by a third party and there was no non-natural use of land. A tap supplied by a pipe was an ordinary and reasonable use of a building.
defences - act of God
A natural event so enormous that it cannot be either foreseen or guarded against
If an escape is caused by such an event then D is not liable as there is nothing he could do to stop it
Carstairs v Taylor (1871) The claimant stored rice in the ground floor of a warehouse which he leased from the defendant. The defendant used the upper floor for storage of cotton. A rat gnawed through a gutter box draining water from the roof of the warehouse. Following this, a heavy rainfall caused the roof to leak and damaged the claimant’s rice.
Held – The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher. The claimant had not brought the water onto his land to accumulate it. The heavy rain and actions of the rat were classed as an act of God.
defence - statutopry authprioty
D will not be liable if the escape occurs during activities authorised by an Act of Parliament provided negligence is not involved
A water main burst causing damage to the claimant’s land. Chelsea Waterworks co were under a statutory obligation to maintain high pressure in the water main. This would mean that any escape would inevitably cause damage.
Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) 70 LT 547
Held – They were not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as they had the defence of statutory authority.
defence - statutopry authprioty
D will not be liable if the escape occurs during activities authorised by an Act of Parliament provided negligence is not involved
A water main burst causing damage to the claimant’s land. Chelsea Waterworks co were under a statutory obligation to maintain high pressure in the water main. This would mean that any escape would inevitably cause damage.
Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) 70 LT 547
Held – They were not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as they had the defence of statutory authority.
Ponting v Noakes (1849) The claimant’s horse died after it had reached over the defendant’s fence and ate some leaves from a Yew tree.
Held – The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the defendant’s land and there had therefore been no escape.
Charles, J: “I do not see that they can be made responsible for the eating of these Yew leaves by an animal which, in order to reach them, had come upon his land. The hurt which the animal received was due to his wrongful intrusion. He had no right to be there and the owner therefore has no right to complain.”
other defences
D will avoid liability if the escape relates to something that was being maintained for the common benefit of the defendant and the claimant (water pipes to different parts of a large building)
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre [1943] -The claimant leased a shop adjacent to a theatre from the defendant, the owner of the theatre. The claimant’s shop sustained flood damage when pipes from the theatre’s sprinkler system burst due to icy weather conditions. The claimant brought an action based on liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
Held – The defendant was not liable. The sprinkler system was equally for the benefit of the claimant and the claimant was deemed to have consented to the use of the sprinkler system since it had been installed prior to him obtaining the lease.
D will avoid liability if the escape relates to something that was being maintained for the common benefit of the defendant and the claimant (water pipes to different parts of a large building)
D will avoid liability if the escape is due to the fault of the claimant
C’s damages will be reduced if the escape was partly his fault or if the damage is made worse by the highly sensitive nature of his own property
If the claimant receives a benefit from the thing accumulated, they may be deemed to have consented to the accumulation:
Defences:
Act of third parties, e.g. Hale v Jennings Brothers, Rickards v Lothian
Act of God where the escape is brought about by natural causes that no human foresight could have guarded against
Statutory authority, e.g. Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co.
Default of the claimant, e.g. Ponting v Noakes
Consent of the claimant, e.g. Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (Birmingham) Ltd.
Therefore claimant must have legal interest in land affected by the escape
Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997)
A resident of London docklands bought an action in nuisance against the developers of the Canary Wharf tower. The nuisances complained of included, among other things, deposits of building dust over the local properties, and interference with television reception.
Held – The House of Lords held that dust deposits could amount to a nuisance, if damage was proved, but interference with television was not an interference with residents’ property rights. The House further suggested, that contrary to an earlier Court of Appeal ruling in Khorasandjan v Bush 1993, that only people with a proprietary interest in land had title to sue in nuisance. Some of the claimants were unable to pursue their claims because they lacked any legal interest in the affected land (e.g. a wife who did not jointly own the family home with her husband). To sue in private nuisance a claimant must have a legal interest in the land affected.
