the rules in Rylands v Fletcher.

Question 1

Requirmrnts

Answer 1

Must be valid claimant
1.That the defendant brought something onto his land (Accumulation);
2.That the defendant made a “non-natural use” of his land (per Lord Cairns, LC);
3.The thing was something likely to do mischief if it escaped (dangerous);
4.The thing did escape and cause damage.

Question 2

Artificial Accumulation

Answer 2

That the defendant brought something onto his land (Accumulation);

Question 3

Non-natural use

Answer 3

Non-natural use means not commonplace.
Rickards v Lothian

Mixture of:
●Extraordinary or unusual use
●AND/OR
●Increased danger/ hazard
Natural use of land has covered :
●Fire in a grate that spread to Cs premises
●Defective wiring
●Water
●Non-natural would include:
●Industrial chemicals (Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather)

Question 4

A dangerous thing

Answer 4

●Something likely to do mischief if it escapes – e.g. chemicals, explosives and less obvious things such as water.
●Hale v Jennings – the escaping object was a chair from a “chair-o-plane” fairground attraction.

Question 5

Escape

Answer 5

●Escape means move from the land the D controls to land he doesn’t. In Read v Lyons the claim under Rylands failed as she was injured whilst still on he D’s site.
●Only Reasonably foreseeable damage is recoverable. This was introduced by Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

Question 6

Damage

Answer 6

As a subset of private nuisance the same rules apply – only damages to property not personal injury can be claimed (though PI was claimed in Hale v Jennings.).

Question 7

Defences

Answer 7

1.Volenti non fit injuria (Consent) – The C may be deemed to have consented if the C gets a benefit from the thing accumulated
2.Contributory Negligence (the thing escapes because of or partly because of the C)
3.Act of stranger – D is not liable for a deliberate and unforeseen act of a stranger see Perry v Kendricks – Ds left a bus on their parking space having emptied the tank of petrol. A stranger removed the petrol cap and another child was injured when they threw a match into the tank. Valid defence.
4.Act of God – in Nicols v Marsland D was not liable after water escaped from an artificial lake following a prolonged and violent rain storm (the worst in living memory)
5.Statutory Authority – Green v Chelsea – D was not liable when one of its water pipes burst. D had a statutory duty to maintain its pipes and given it was not negligent, it was not liable for the results of carrying out its duty.

Question 8

Remedies

Answer 8

Damages for the cost of repair or replacement of property only.