Torts connected to land - Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards

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

What are the facts of Rylands v Fletcher?

A

D owned a mill and hired some contractors to construct a reservoir to supply it with water, the reservoir overflowed and flooded nearby mineshafts.

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

What principle comes from Rylands v Fletcher?

A

The person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril

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

Who can claim under Rylands v Fletcher? Case.

A

Someone with a property interest in the land - Transco PLC v Stockport MBC

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

Which case says a landlord is not liable for the actions of his tenant?

A

Smith v Scott

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

What are the requirements for Rylands v Fletcher?

A
Accumulation
Mischief
Escape
Non-natural use
Defence Damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is meant by accumulation? Case.

A

D must bring the thing that causes the harm onto his land, it cannot naturally occur on the land.
Giles v Walker - Thistles occur naturally, claim unsuccessful

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Which case shows that the thing accumulated must be for D’s own purposes?

A

Dunne v North West Gas Board - Gas escaped from a gas main leading to 5 R v F claims, unsuccessful as the gas board was not accumulating gas for their own use.

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

Which case shows that the thing accumulated does not need to be the thing which escapes?

A

Miles v Forest Rock Granite - Whilst the escaped rocks were not accumulated the explosives that caused them to escape were

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

What is meant by mischief?

A

It is likely that the thing accumulated could cause damage if it escapes, even if it is not inherently dangerous

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

Give 4 examples of dangerous things that could escape. 4 Cases.

A

Gas - Batchellor v Tunbridge Wells Gas Co.
Electricity - National Telephone v Baker
Poisonous Fumes - West v Bristol Tramway
Flagpole - Shiffman v Order of St John

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

What was held in Hale v Jennings?

A

A chair breaking of a fairground round is an escape

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

What was held in Crowhurst v Amersham?

A

D planted a Yew tree over the fence with C’s property, C’s horse could reach the poisonous leaves.
Held: As the tree had poisonous qualities it was a non-natural use of the land

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

What is meant by escape?

A

The damage must occur outside the D’s land for a successful claim.

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

Which case was not successful because the injury happened on D’s property?

A

Read v Lyons

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

How is Ponting v Noakes different to Crowhurst v Amersham?

A

In Ponting the horse reached over the fence to the Yew leaves meaning there was no escape unlike in Crowhurst.
Ponting - D Not Liable
Crowhurst - D Liable

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

What does the case Cambridge Waters say regarding foreseeability?

A

Foreseeability of the type of damage is required for liability in actions nuisance

17
Q

What is meant by Non-Natural use? Case.

A

Rickards v Lothian - ‘‘Some special use bringing with it increased danger to others’’
It has now become a non-ordinary use

18
Q

How will courts determine what is a non-ordinary use?

A

It will depend on the place, time and the context of the use of the land.

19
Q

What is meant by defence to damage? Case

A

No liability for pure economic loss

Subject to further rules on Causation and Remoteness of Damage - The Wagon Mound No.1

20
Q

What defences are available for Rylands v Fletcher?

A

Act of a Stranger
Act of God
Statutory Authority
Consent

21
Q

Give 3 positive points about Rylands v Fletcher

A

1) Easy to prove - C can get compensation
2) There are multiple defences
3) Strict test for foreseeability

22
Q

Give 3 Negative points about Rylands v Fletcher

A

1) Wide range of defences increases complexity
2) Overlap with Nuisance and Negligence - is R v F necessary
3) Law Commission has described it as complex and uncertain