T/ryland v fletcher

Question 1

The rule of ryland and fletcher ?

Answer 1

-the rule is used when something from a neighbouring property damages or destroys property, rather than causing an enjoyment of land.
-where a persons property is damaged or destroyed by escape of non natural stored material.
-four requirments must be proved
-in rylands and fletcher d built a resoviour
-resiovour filtered to unused mine shaft then spread to a mine
-owned by the claiment causing extensive damage

Question 2

must be proven there are parties to an action ?

Answer 2

-it must be proven there are parties to an action
-in (read v lyons) will either be an owner of an occupier, who satisfies the four rules
-must have some contro over the land in which the material is stored
-the claiment must therefore have some interest in the affected land (smith v scott)

Question 3

must be a bringing onto the land ?

Answer 3

-must be a bringing onto the land
-if the thing is naturally presented then there can be no liability
-there is also no liability for something the naturally accumalted on the land
-in (Ellison v ministry of defence) rain water accumalted on an airfield
-did not lead to liability when it escaped and caused flooding on neighbouring land

Question 4

must be likley to do mischief?

Answer 4

-must be likley to do mischief if it escapes
-the test of foreseeablility it is not the escape foreseeable, just the damage.
-As in (hale v jennings bros) a chair o plane on a fairground ride became detached from the main assembly whilst in motion and injured a stallhost as it crashed to the ground.
-the owner of the ride was liable at risk of injury was foreseeable if the cart became loose

Question 5

must be a non natural use of land?

Answer 5

-must be a non natural use of land
-this changes with technological developments
-in (rickards v lothian) water taps were turned on and caused a blockage on the d premisis causing damage
-the d was not liablie as the use of water in domestic pipes was natural use of land

Question 6

the thing stored must escape and see foreseeable damage?

Answer 6

-finally the thing stored must escape and see foreseeable damage
-if the thing did not move for one property to another then there is no liability as in (read v lyons)
-the damage to adjoining property must be reasonably foreseeable as in (cambridge water v eastern counties)
apply if relevant:act of god, act of stranger and statutory authority

Question 7

outro ?

Answer 7

Therefore d can/cannot claim under the rule of ryland v fletcher.