The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

Answer 1

D owned mill - paid independent contractor to come and build reservoir to serve the mill.
Unbeknownst…reservoir constructed over disused mineshafts, part of which were under the plaintiff’s land.
Contractors did bad job.
When filled with water - reservoir burst - caused water to flow into mineshafts under P’s home and collapsed - caused property damage to P.
Not negligence - as independent contractors.
Not private nuisance, as D hadn’t created it.

CREATED OWN CAUSE OF ACTION: RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER:

‘A PERSON WHO, FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES, BRINGS ON HIS LAND AND KEEPS THERE ANYTHING LIKELY TO DO MISCHIEF IF IT ESCAPES, MUST DO SO AT HIS PERIL, AND, IF HE DOES NOT DO SO, HE IS PRIMA FACIE ANSWERABLE FOR ALL DAMAGE WHICH IS THE NATURAL CONSEQUENCE OF ITS ESCAPE’
(Blackburn J)

Question 2

Elements of the tort (R v F)

Answer 2

(1) Defendant must have CONTROL
(2) Something must have been brought onto the land or accumulated for ‘UNNATURAL’ USE.
(3) That something must be DANGEROUS.
(4) The dangerous thing must ESCAPE
(5) The damage must be REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
(6) Defences
(7) Remedies

Question 3

Smith v Scott

Answer 3

(Obnoxious tenants case)
Can be no liability for this also under the rule in R v F, as landlord does not have CONTROL over the tenants.
Contracts Rylands v Fletcher itself - even though the work was carried out by the contractors, D clearly had ‘control’ over it.

Question 4

Giles v Walker (1890)

Answer 4

Seeds from thistles blew over from D’s farm on to P’s land - seeds rooted and caused unwanted interference/damage.

Dismissed: held NOT to be an ‘unnatural use of land’.

Question 5

Rickards v Lothian [1913]

Answer 5

Tap left running in residential block.
Here, water held NOT to be ‘unnatural use’ as there was nothing unnatural about water running from a tap.
Therefore no liability under R v F.

Question 6

British Celanese Ltd v AH Hunt Ltd

Answer 6

Metal foil strips case.
Claim brought in R v F as well as private nuisance.
Whilst claim in PN succeeded, failed in R v F as metal foil strips held NOT to be an ‘unnatural use of land.’

Question 7

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc [1994]

Answer 7

Liability in PN and under R v F not founded due to lack of RF of type of damage.
BUT: when discussing liability under Rylands - held that storage of the chemicals was a ‘classic case of non-natural use’.

Question 8

Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan BC [2004]

Answer 8

Defendant council laying a water pipe to supply residential block.
Without fault, it burst and lots of water was released.
Flooding - claimant’s gas pipe collapsed - required emergency repair work.
held: WAS NOT UNNATURAL USE

On the point of thing being dangerous: D recognised or ought to have recognised as ‘giving rise to an EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH RISK OF DANGER OR MISCHIEF IF THERE SHOULD BE AN ESCAPE,…however unlikely….
H of L held that it was NOT an unnatural use of land.

Lord Bingham: ‘ordinary user preferable test to natural user’….’rule in R v F only to be engaged when D’s use is shown to be EXTRAORDINARY and UNUSUAL.’

Question 9

Attorney General v Corke [1933]

Answer 9

Landowner of disued field, who allowed travellers to stay there for weekly rent was found liable under R v F for their nuisances.
Shows that people can be considered DANGEROUS in the event of an ESCAPE, for the purposes of establishing liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

Question 10

Read v Lyons [1947]

Answer 10

Woman injured in ammunitions factors during in WW2 in explosion.

Held; NOT an escape of the explosives, as didn’t escape the factory’s premises but happened inside.
ESCAPE means escape from a place under D’s control to a place which is outside of D’s occupation or control.

+ Shows that PERSONAL INJURY IS NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER R v F (as a subspecies of private nuisance) - Affirmed in Transco

Question 11

Cambridge Water Co. v Easter Counties Leather Plc

Answer 11

Chemical seeping through the floor = sufficient for escape.

Question 12

Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd [1996]

Answer 12

Residue from firework landed on claimant’s boat and started fire.
Liability in negligence AND under R v F.
Held to be sufficient for an ‘ESCAPE’.

Question 13

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc

Answer 13

Shows that in R v F, as in private nuisance, the TYPE OF DAMAGE MUST BE RF - damage cannot be too remote.

Question 14

Common benefit

Answer 14

Defence if the claimant gains benefit from the D’s storage of the dangerous thing, expressly or impliedly consenting to it.

Question 15

Ponting v Noakes [1894]

Answer 15

Authority for defence of DEFAULT OF THE CLAIMANT
Akin to contributory negligence - only a partial defence - damages will be reduced accordingly.

P’s horse ate from D’s overhanging dangerous tree and died as a result.

Question 16

Box v Jubb (1879)

Answer 16

Authority for defence of ACTS OF A STRANGER

Question 17

Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd [1956]

Answer 17

Clarified ‘stranger’ (Box v Jubb)

Someone over whom the occupier has no control.

Question 18

Nichols v Marsland

Answer 18

Authority for the Act of God defence - applies in all nuisance torts.
Extremely heavy rainfall was not enough to preclude liability in private nuisance, but it WAS in R v F - no liability if the actual escape is caused by the Act of God or extraordinary rainfall.

Question 19

Fire Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 S.86

Answer 19

Statutory defence:
No action lies against a person where a fire begins accidentally.

NB: does not apply to fires started negligently or intentionally.

Question 20

Filliter v Pihippard (1847)

Answer 20

Statutory defence provided by Fire Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 S.86 does not apply to a fire that was started accidentally but spread through negligence.

Question 21

Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England Ltd [1967]

Answer 21

Liability found under R v F for fire which spread on to P’s land - where D’s storage unit in garden stored petrol, machinery and other flammable things - held to be ‘non-natural’ use of land.

Question 22

Stanmard v Gore [2012]

Answer 22

Tyres case

Overruled Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England Ltd

Held; cases of fire damage were likely to be very difficult to bring under R v F as -
(1) First - it was a ‘thing’ that had been brought on to the land that must escape , not a fire that was started by the ‘thing.’

(2) Limited to negligent or deliberate starting of fire.
(3) Starting a fire on one’s own land is not necessarily an unnatural use of land.