Tort Law - Rylands V Fletcher Flashcards
Rylands v Fletcher created a new and separate tort concerning what?
The escape of substances held on land likely to be dangerous if they escape.
What must the claimant have in order to make a claim?
The claimant must have an interest in the land.
And a claim can only be brought against a defendant who is an occupier and in control of the land
What needs to be proved to be successful in RvF? Who decided this?
It was decided by Blackburn J that to succeed in RvF the claimant must prove:
- That the defendant brought something onto his land
- That the defendant made a ‘non-natural use’ of his land
- The thing was something likely to do mischief if it escaped
- The thing did escape and cause damage
Rylands v Fletcher is known as what?
RvF is known as a strict liability tort, this means that you do not have to prove fault on behalf of the defendant in order to find them liable, if the four elements are proved there will be liability even though the defendant is not technically blameworthy
The defendant brought something onto his land: Explain? Supporting case?
It must be proved that the defendant has brought a substance onto his land that was not naturally present on the land, this could be gas or electricity, chemicals, trees or plants.
In RvF the water for the reservoir was not naturally on the land
The defendant made a non-natural use of his land: explain?
It must be proved that the substance the defendant brought onto the land is being used for a non-natural purpose. The courts have interpreted this element to require proof of an extraordinary and unusual use of the land
The defendant made a non natural use of his land: which cases support this?
Richards v Lothian. The defendant controlled a floor in an office block where an unknown person had blocked plug holes and turned on the taps, this caused flooding into the lower floor controlled by the claimant. Held: the defendants were not liable, it was found that use of water in domestic pipes is a natural use of land
Ellison v MOD. Held: construction work was an ordinary use of the land. Also, the rain water accumulated naturally and was not artificially kept there.
The thing was likely to do mischief if it escaped: explain?
This is a test of foreseeability, it is not the escape that must be foreseeable, but damage must be a foreseeable consequence of an escape
The thing was likely to do mischief if it escaped: which case supports this?
Cambridge Water Co. Held: they were not liable under the principles of RvF as the type of damage was not reasonable foreseeable, it was not foreseeable that a spillage would eventually lead to a contamination of a water borehole so far away
The thing did escape and cause damage: explain?
It must be proved that the substance or item did escape and cause damage, escape means that the substance moved from the property of the defendant to the claimant.
It must be proved that there was damage to property, the modern understanding is that no claim can be made under this tort for personal injury
The thing did escape and cause damage: which case supports this?
Wyvern Tyres v Gore. Held: the fire escaped, not the tires, the fire had not been brought onto the land
What are the defences specific to Rylands v Fletcher?
- Act of a stranger
- Act of God
- Statutory authority
Act of a stranger: explain? Which case supports this?
If a stranger, whom the defendant has no control of, causes the escape the defendant may not be liable
Perry v Kendricks Transport. Held: the defendant was not liable, the escape was caused by a deliberate action of a third party
Act of God: explain?
This defence is a claim that there were extreme weather conditions which caused the escape, which the defendant could not reasonably have protected against.
Statutory authority: explain?
If the terms of an Act of Parliament authorise the activity on land, then this may act as a defence
