Tort Law - Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

what is Rylands v Fletcher?

A

a land tort where something has been brought onto land and has escaped into the land of their neighbour, so their neighbour wishes to sue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

C can only claim for…

A

property damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what is the case of Rylands v Fletcher?

A

D owned a mill and hired contractors to create reservoir on his land. Contractors failed to block off disused mineshafts that connected to adjoining land. Water flooded mines. D liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

claimant must have…

A

a proprietary interest in the land (either own or live on)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

defendant must be…

A

the occupier of the land which they bring and accumulates something

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what is the 4 part test to prove?

A
  1. brought and accumulated
  2. likely to cause mischief
  3. escapes and cause RF damage
  4. extraordinary and unusual use of land
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what does ‘brought and accumulated’ mean?

A

the item must be brought and accumulated on land.
if it is naturally occurring then no claim can occur.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what case example can be used for ‘brought and accumulated’?

A

Giles - D’s thistles from garden blew into C’s crops and ruined them. No claim as naturally occurring.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what does ‘likely to cause mischief mean’?

A

it must be likely that the thing stored could cause a mischief.
the thing doesn’t have to be dangerous itself, just that it could cause an issue.

e.g large structures/large bodies of water

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what case example can be used for ‘likely to cause mischief’?

A

Hale - D operated a chairoplane. One of the seats detached and escaped into the claimant’s land. D liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what does ‘escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damages’ mean?

A

there are two elements:
1. the thing must physically escape from D’s land to C’s
2. the escape must then cause reasonably foreseeable damage.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

issue with…

A

smoke - can escape but cannot be brought and stored

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what case example can be used for ‘escapes and causes RF damage’?

A

Gore - D stored tyres on land. Fire lit and tyres fed fire to C’s land causing physical damage. Claim was successful.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what does ‘extraordinary and unusual use of land’?

A

D’s use of land must be extraordinary and usual in the time and place.

A natural use of land will not result in liability.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what case example can be used for ‘Extraordinary and unusual use of land’?

A

Transco - Pipe burst causing damage and flooding. D (a company) gave maintenance to pipes and was a natural use of land.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what defences can be used against RvF?

A

Act of a 3rd party/trespasser - blame shifts
Statutory Authority - law gives you permission to cause this damage
Act of God - natural disaster

17
Q

what case example can be used for ‘act of god’ defence?

A

Nichols - heavy rainfall caused damage. no claim.