The rule in Ryan and Fletcher Flashcards
The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher
imposes liability on an occupier of land in circumstances where he has accumulated a danger on his land which escapes and causes injury to the plaintiff.
How is the rule unique?
Unlike the tort of nuisance, the injury is usually caused by a once-off escape from the defendant’s land;
unlike the tort of trespass to land the injury is usually consequential rather than direct,
and unlike the tort of negligence the defendant will be liable under the rule even if he took reasonable steps to prevent the escape in question.
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR
the parties were land users. The defendant built a reservoir to supply water to the mill on his land. This work was completed by independent contractors who negligently failed to discover there was an unused mine shaft under the reservoir which linked the plaintiff’s mine. The water from the reservoir escaped into the disused mineshaft and flooded the plaintiff’s mine. It was found the defendant, as opposed to the independent contractors, was not negligent. The injury was consequential so there was no trespass to the plaintiff’s land. Since the escape was a once-off event there was no nuisance. Nevertheless, the defendant was found liable.
[T]he person who for his own purpose brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbour, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbour’s reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbour’s privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapours of his neighbour’s alkali works, is damnified without any fault of his own; and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour, who has brought something on his own property which was not naturally there, harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows to be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour’s, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property.
Rickards v. Lothian: non- nautral use of land
t was explained that the term “non natural use” of land means “some special use bringing with it an increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community”.
Cambridge Water Company v. Eastern Counties Leather plc
considered the rule in detail and held that the defendant would only be liable if the damage suffered by the plaintiff was a kind reasonably foreseeable by the defendant. In that case the use of a solvent in the defendant’s manufacturing process and its storage constituted a non-natural use of the defendants’ land. However, since the plaintiffs were not able to establish that pollution of their water supply by the solvent was foreseeable in the circumstances the action failed.
Healy v. Bray Urban District Council
In order for the defendant to be liable under the rule he must have brought the source of the danger on to his property.
the plaintiff was injured when a rock came loose on the defendant’s land and rolled towards the plaintiff. It was held the defendant did not bring the rock onto his land and could not be liable under the rule.
Read v. J Lyons and Company
The source of the danger must have escaped from the land which the defendant either occupied or controlled. The defendant need not, however, have a proprietary interest in the land.
“‘escape’ for the purpose of applying the proposition in Rylands v. Fletcher means escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control.”
The case of fire:
Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v. Gore
Cases of fire damage are likely to be very difficult to bring within the rule 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) While fire may be a dangerous thing, the occasions when fire as such is brought onto the land may be limited to cases where the fire has been deliberately or negligently started by the occupier or one for whom he is responsible.
(3) In any event starting a fire on one’s land may well be an ordinary use of the land.
Who can sue?
“is not limited to adjoining occupiers but extends to any person who sustains material or personal injuries as a result of the escape”.
Defences
The absence of negligence on the defendant’s part, i.e. the taking of reasonable care, is not a defence under the rule. However, if the defendant could not have reasonably foreseen the kind of damage, this will amount to a defence.
The defendant will also not be liable if the escape was the result of a deliberate act of a third party which could not have been foreseen.
If the escape is a result of the plaintiff’s own fault the rule will not be applied.
Victor Weston (Éire) Limited v. Kenny [1954] IR
If the plaintiff consents to the non-natural use in question, or the risk of the danger in question, this will afford a defence.
Both parties occupied the same building. The plaintiff’s premises were flooded by an escape of water from defendant’s premises above when a tap had been left running over night.
Where a person accumulates water upon his land or premises he is liable for any damage caused by its escape; but where the person injured has consented to the accumulation, the person from whose premises the water has escaped is not liable apart from negligence … Where a building comprising several floors is fitted with a water supply serving lavatories on each floor, and the owner lets it in flats to different tenants, each tenant is deemed to take his flat as he finds it and to consent to, and accept, the risks ordinarily incidental to the existence of the water supply. If the lavatory on one of the upper floors leaks and the water damages the property of a tenant on the floor below there is no liability apart from negligence.
The case was ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiff on the basis that the defendant was negligent.
Beutler v. Beutler
a drunken truck driver crashed into a wall and damaged a gas meter. The gas escaped and an explosion occurred. The gas company was held not liable as the escape was due to the deliberate act of a third party.
The defendant will also not be liable if the escape was the result of a deliberate act of a third party which could not have been foreseen.
Nichols v. Marsland
defendant could be excused if the escape was a result of an “act of God”.
the defendant was not found liable for damage caused to the plaintiff’s property as a result of an escape of water as the escape was caused by a violent storm.
Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v. Gore
(1) The defendant must be the owner or occupier of land.
(2) He must bring or keep or collect an exceptionally dangerous or
mischievous thing on his land.
(3) He must have recognised or ought reasonably to have recognised,
judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place and time, that there is an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if that thing should escape, however unlikely an escape may have been thought to be.
(4) His use of his land must, having regard to all the circumstances of time and place, be extraordinary and unusual.
(5) The thing must escape from his property into or onto the property of another.
(6) The escape must cause damage of a relevant kind to the rights and enjoyment of the claimant’s land.
(7) Damages for death or personal injury are not recoverable.
(8) It is not necessary to establish the defendant’s negligence but an Act
of God or the act of a stranger will provide a defence.
