rylands v fletcher Flashcards
summary of the case of rylands v fletcher
. water flooded through mine shafts which remained open during D’s construction of a reservoir and caused damage to C’s mine
. D was liable for the escape of water and the damage to C’s land
using a case, explain who can sue
Hunter v Canary Wharf - C must show that they have proprietary (legal) interest in the land affected by the escape as an owner or tenant
using a case explain who can be sued against
Reads v Lyons - the D who is the owner or occupier who accumulates the thing that escapes
element 1
D voluntarily brings onto his land an accumulation of the thing that escapes.
case for element 1
Giles v walker - D isn’t liable as the thistles grew on his land naturally
element 2
the thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes
case for element 2
Hale v jennings bros
element 3
the thing amounts to a non-natural use
Cambridge water
large quantity of chemicals was non-natural as it was unusual
Transco v stockport
HoL rephrased the requirement to mean ‘extraordinary and unusual’
Gore v stannard
where the thing is accumulated may be relevant
element 4
C must show that the substance in question escaped from the D’s land into his
case for element 4
Reads v lyons
element 5
the thing causes foreseeable damage (causation)
explain an act of a stranger with case example
Richards v Lothian - if an escapes occurs from a deliberate and unforeseen act of a stranger
