Tort - Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

What type of tort is Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 1

Strict liability

Question 2

What are the case facts of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 2

Contractors were hired to make a reservoir on the defendant’s land, this flooded neighbouring land

Question 4

What type of tort is Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 4

Strict liability

Question 5

What are the case facts of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 5

The defendant hired contractors to build a reservoir, but as a result, neighbouring lands were flooded

Question 5

What are the elements that must be proved for Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Who is a claimant in Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 6

Someone with in an interest in the affected land - e.g. they own/rent the land or have a property interest in it

Question 7

Who is a defendant in Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 7

The owner/occupier of the land or someone who has sufficient control over the land

Question 8

Which two cases show that the object must be brought onto the land?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

What must be foreseeable in Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 9

It is not the escape that must be foreseeable only that damage is foreseeable

Question 10

What case demonstrates the thing doing mischief if it escapes?

Answer 10

Shiffman v Grand Priory of St John - a flagpole fell and hit the claimant

Question 11

In which case was there not a non-natural use of land?

Answer 11

Stannard v Gore - the defendant’s commercial activity was reasonable for an industrial estate

Question 12

How is non natural defined?

Answer 12

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”

Question 13

In which case did a wrongful act by a third-party prevent a claim in Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

In which case did a public benefit prevent a claim in Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 14

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

Question 16

In which case was the damage not foreseeable?

Answer 16

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather - the damage was 1.3 miles away and was not foreseeable

Question 17

In which case was volenti successfully argued?

Answer 17

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

Question 18

In which case was there not a claim under Rylands v Fletcher because of an action by the third party?

Answer 18

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