The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
what did Blackburn J hold in the case of Rylands v Fletcher?
“The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands 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 damage which is the natural consequence of its escape”.
what are the elements of the Tort
(1) The escaped thing must have been brought onto the defendant’s land
(2) For his own benefit
(3) Something likely to do mischief if it escapes
(4) Non-natural User
(5) escape
(6) Damage
(7) Lack of defence
what are the facts of Healy v Bray UDC - Accumulation/ The escaped thing must have been brought onto the defendant’s land
The defendant was found
not liable when the plaintiff, who had been walking around Bray Head, had been struck by a rock which had been dislodged from further up the hill. The rocks had accumulated there by
force of nature and so her case fell outside the scope of the rule.
what are the facts of Miles v. Forest Roof granite - Accumulation/ The escaped thing must have been brought onto the defendant’s land
He brought explosives on to the land – explosion caused rock to land on the road. He brought the explosives so it was foreseeable consequence of accumulation.
what are the facts of Carstairs v Taylor? - For his own benefit
The plaintiff tenants attempted to affix liability under the rule following leaks from plumbing system installed for the benefit of the premises as a whole and the court upheld this ‘mutual benefit’ as serving to defeat the claim. However, outside of these type of cases it has rarely featured as a defence
Something likely to do mischief if it escapes
It is necessary to show that harm is foreseeable should there be an escape (however unforeseeable that escape may be).
what are the facts of Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc - Something likely to do mischief if it escapes
Given the standard of scientific knowledge in the 1970s, it was not foreseeable that small spillages of chemical solvents could seep into underground channels and pollute the plaintiff’s well/water supply.
This decision has the effect of narrowing the scope of the rule as it means that future generations may be unprotected if scientific research develops in the future to show that certain chemicals have additional dangerous effects which are not currently known about.
Non Natural use
The Privy Council considered the rule in Rickards v Lothian and held that non-natural use
requires that
“it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community”.
The judges in Transco v. Stockporty Metropolitan Borough Council gave the definitions of
- extra ordinary and unusual
- consider whether the use of land was special
- dangerous user of land
Escape and the case of Read v Lyons & Co. Ltd
Must leave land to go on land owned by someone else.
Read v Lyons & Co. Ltd - where an inspector of munitions had been injured by an explosion while on the grounds of the
munitions factory. The House of Lords dismissed her claim on the basis there had been no escape to bring her case within the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Fletcher. In many ways this was an unusual result, and commentators have suggested that this requirement should be reinterpreted to mean ‘escape from the control of the defendant’ rather than strictly construed as escape from the defendant’s land.
Defence - rylands v fletcher
- Act of stranger
Perry v. Kendrick transport ltd 1956
Child threw match – no liability as there was no negligence. - Act of god
Superquinn ltd v. Bray UDC
Water overflowed due to heavy rain. - Statutory authority
Nuisance defence – same here. - Consent
what are the key differences between nuisance and rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
- The rule now deals with damage caused by extra-hazardous activities whereas nuisance regulates the types of conduct allowed between neighbours.
- In addition, in claims for nuisance only an unreasonable
interference will be actionable whereas under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher there is no such acceptable level of escape.
consent as a defence
Consent has been successfully raised as a defence to a claim under Rylands v Fletcher,
- Irish law the scope of this defence has been greatly reduced by s.34(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act 1961 which requires a defendant to show either:
(a) that by contract he is not liable
or (b) that the plaintiff before the act agreed to waive his legal rights in respect of it
explain how the rule in Rylands is a form of strict liability
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes an exceptional form of strict liability and applies to unusual dangers or activities on land. The imposition of strict liability means that the Defendant is liable in the absence of intent or neglect. Where the Plaintiff can show the constituent elements the Defendant is liable and liability in this area is nondelegable.
