Tort - Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
What type of tort is Rylands v Fletcher?
Strict liability
What are the case facts of Rylands v Fletcher?
Contractors were hired to make a reservoir on the defendant’s land, this flooded neighbouring land
What type of tort is Rylands v Fletcher?
Strict liability
What are the case facts of Rylands v Fletcher?
The defendant hired contractors to build a reservoir, but as a result, neighbouring lands were flooded
What are the elements that must be proved for Rylands v Fletcher?
1) The bringing on to the land and an accumulation or storage
2) Of a thing that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes
3) Which amounts to a non-natural use of the land, and
4) Which does escape and cause reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property
Who is a claimant in Rylands v Fletcher?
Someone with in an interest in the affected land - e.g. they own/rent the land or have a property interest in it
Who is a defendant in Rylands v Fletcher?
The owner/occupier of the land or someone who has sufficient control over the land
Which two cases show that the object must be brought onto the land?
Ellison v Ministry of Defence - rainwater that accumulated naturally and caused flooding did not lead to liability
Giles v Walker - naturally growing weeds that spread onto neighbouring lands did not lead to liability
What must be foreseeable in Rylands v Fletcher?
It is not the escape that must be foreseeable only that damage is foreseeable
What case demonstrates the thing doing mischief if it escapes?
Shiffman v Grand Priory of St John - a flagpole fell and hit the claimant
In which case was there not a non-natural use of land?
Stannard v Gore - the defendant’s commercial activity was reasonable for an industrial estate
How is non natural defined?
In Transco v Stockport MBC In this case Lord Bingham said the defendant must use the land in a way which is “extraordinary and unusual in that time and place”
In which case did a wrongful act by a third-party prevent a claim in Rylands v Fletcher?
Rickards v Lothian - The defendant was a landlord and someone blocked all of the sinks and turned on the taps to cause a flood, this damaged the claimant’s stock
In which case did a public benefit prevent a claim in Rylands v Fletcher?
British Celanese v Hunt Ltd - Metal strips for electrical components were blown off the defendant’s land and caused a power outage, this risk was outweighed by the benefit to the local community
In which case was the damage not foreseeable?
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather - the damage was 1.3 miles away and was not foreseeable
In which case was volenti successfully argued?
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre - the sprinkler system was equally for the benefit of the claimant and the claimant was deemed to have consented to the use of the sprinkler system
In which case was there not a claim under Rylands v Fletcher because of an action by the third party?
Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd - some boys set fire to a petrol tank on the defendant’s land which caused an explosion, this was not the defendant’s fault
