Rylands v Fletcher- Paper 2 Flashcards
Define Rylands v Fletcher
D has accumulated something onto his land, which escapes and causes damage to neighbouring land
5 elements of R v L
- D must bring/accumulate something onto his land
- That thing must be likely to cause mischief if it escapes
- Bringing/accumulating that thing must be a non-natural use of the land
- The thing must actually escape and cause reasonably foreseeable damage
- C must be able to sue D
Smith v Scott
Where the owner has let the land, the tenants have control over the land
Ellison v Ministry of defence
Where the thing causing damage has naturally accumulated onto the land, it cannot be said that D has brought it onto his land
Hale v Jennings
Doesn’t matter how likely it is for the thing to cause damage, it only matters whether or not it would cause damage if it did escape
Stannard v Gore
Where fire escapes and causes damage, D must have brought that fire onto his land, not just objects that will worsen it
Rickards v Lothian
Non-natural land use was defined as ‘some special use bringing with it increased danger to others- not ordinary use of the land or one that is of general benefit to the community’
British Celenease v A H Hunt
Something can be a natural use of the land if it is of benefit to the community
Cambridge water v Eastern counties leather (use of land)
If the high risk of danger outweighs the benefit to the community then the land use can still be deemed as non-natural
Read v Lyons
‘Escape’ means the thing goes into a place where D does not have occupation or control
Cambridge water v Eastern counties leather (remoteness)
If the damage is not reasonably foreseeable then it is too remote to claim
Transco v Stockport MBC
C needs to have proprietary interest rights in the affected land
Defences + cases
- Act of a stranger (Rickards v Lothian)
- Acts of God (Nicholls v Marsland)
Remedy
Because damage has already been caused, the claims will always be damages
