2B.4.2 Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

What is the mens rea for Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 1

Rylands v Fletcher is a strict liability tort. The claimant does not have to prove mens rea.

Question 2

Is Rylands v Fletcher its own tort, or part of the tort of nuisance?

Answer 2

The case of Cambridge Water co. v Eastern Counties Leather plc that Rylands v Fletcher is a sub-tort of nuisance, rather than its own tort.

Question 3

Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

Answer 3

D constructed a reservoir using independent contractors. The reservoir was constructed on empty mine shafts The weight of the water caused mine shafts to collapse Water flooded neighbours mine.

• The name of the case is also the name of the tort.

Question 4

Can personal injury be claimed for under Rylands and Fletcher?

Answer 4

In the case of Transco plc v Stockport (2004), it was held that it is not possible to claim for personal injury.

Question 5

What are the four elements of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 5

1) A ‘thing’ is brought onto land and an accumulated

2) The ‘thing’ is likely to cause mischief if it escapes

3) The storage amounts to a non-natural use of the land

4) The ‘thing’ does escape and causes foreseeable damage: water escaped and flooded the mines.

Question 6

Potential claimants

Answer 6

A person who can take an action in this tort has to have an interest in the land affected, as shown in Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997). This means that they must own the land or rent it, or have some sort of property interest in it.

Question 7

Potential defendants

Answer 7

A defendant to a case of Rylands v Fletcher will either be the owner or occupier of land who satisfies the four elements of the tort, all of which must be present for liability. It is assumed that the defendant must have some control over the land on which the material is stored.

Question 8

[Elements of R v F]

The ‘thing’ is likely to do mischief it is escapes

Answer 8

If the ‘thing’ in question is already naturally present on the land, there can be no liability.

There cannot be liability for a thing that naturally accumulates (is stored) on the land.

Cases:
- Giles v Walker (1890)
- Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997)

Question 9

Giles v Walker (1890)

Answer 9

No liability when weeds spread onto neighbouring land as they were growing naturally.

Question 10

Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997)

Answer 10

Rainwater that accumulated naturally on an airfield did not lead to liability when it escaped and cased flooding on neighbouring land.

Question 11

[Elements of R v F]

The ‘thing’ or substance is likely to do mischief if it escapes

Answer 11

This is a test of foreseeability. It is not the escape that must be foreseeable – only that damage is foreseeable if the ‘thing’ brought onto land does escape.

Examples of ‘things’ which courts have decided can do mischief are:
- Gas and electricity
- Poisonous fumes
- A flag pole
- Tree branches

Cases:
* Jones v Ffestiniog Railway (1867)
* Bristol Tramways (1908)
* Hillier v Air Ministry (1962)
* Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board (1878)
* Stannard v Gore (2012)

Question 12

Jones v Ffestiniog Railway (1867)

Answer 12

Train sparks set fire to haystack

Question 13

Bristol Tramways (1908)

Answer 13

Creosote fumes damaged plants

Question 14

Hillier v Air Ministry (1962)

Answer 14

Cows electrocuted by D’s underground cables

Question 15

Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board (1878)

Answer 15

Trees in cemetery grew into C’s field, horse ate branches and died.

Question 16

Stannard v Gore (2012)

Answer 16

A fire occurred in the defendant’s tyre-fitting premises which spread to the claimant’s adjoining premises. The claimant’s action was dismissed in the Court of Appeal.

In their view it was an essential requirement that an exceptionally dangerous ‘thing’ be brought and stored on the land and which had escaped.

In this case, it was the fire that had escaped – not the tyres which were stored on the land. The tyres were not exceptionally dangerous.

Question 17

[Elements of R v F]

A non-natural use of land

Answer 17

In Rickards v Lothian (1913), the judge said it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others.

The leading case of Transco v Stockport MBC (2004) ruled that ‘non-natural’ refers to some extraordinary or unusual use of land and a Rylands v Fletcher action can only take place where the defendant’s use of the land is extraordinary and unusual.

In general, storage of things associated with the domestic use of land will not normally be classified as non-natural, even though they may be potentially hazardous. The following have been decided by the courts as being a natural use of land:
- A fire in a grate which spread to the claimant’s premises
- Defective electric wiring that caused a fire which spread to the claimant’s premises
- A domestic water supply

In the case of Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994), the storage of chemicals in a factory was a classic example of a non-natural use of land. Just because the activity was an important source of local employment did not make the storage a natural use of land.

Question 18

British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd (1969)

Answer 18

The defendants stored strips of metal foil used in the manufacture of electrical components. Some strips blew off the defendant’s land onto an electricity substation, causing a power failure. It was held that the use of land by the defendants was a natural use because of the benefits from the manufacture received by the local population.

Question 19

Transco v Stockport MBC (2004)

Answer 19

The council were responsible for the maintenance of pipe work supplying water to a black of flats. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. The water collected at an embarkment to collapse and left the gas main exposed and unsupported. This was a serious and immediate risk and the claimant took action to avoid the potential danger. They then sought to recover the cost of the remedial works in a Rylands v Fletcher.

The House of Lords decided that the council were not liable as their use of the land was not a non-natural use.

Question 20

[Elements of R v F]

The thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage

Answer 20

The stored item must escape from one property onto another property.

Cases:
- Read v Lyons
- Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

Question 21

Read v Lyons (1947)

Answer 21

An inspector was checking the interior of a munitions factory and was injured, together with a number of workers, when a shell exploded. The House of Lords decided that Rylands v Fletcher did not apply as there was ‘no escape at all of the relevant kind’.

Question 22

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

Answer 22

The defendants stored chemicals for their leather tanning business. There were frequent spillages and over the years, chemicals seeped into the concrete floors and into the soil below. An area where the claimants extracted water became polluted and involved the claimants spending over a million pounds to move its operation.

They claimed this cost from the defendants but the HoL decided that the damage was not foreseeable and too remote from the site of the spillage.

Question 23

Defences to rylands and fletcher

Answer 23

Despite the tort being described a strict liability, there are defences possible in the event of a claim.

These include:
* Act of God
* Act of a stranger
* Volenti non fit injuria (consent)
* Wrongful act of third party
* Statutory authority
* Contributory negligence

Question 24

[Defences to RvF]

Act of God

Answer 24

This defence may succeed where there are extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight’ can provide against’. It is only likely to succeed if there are unforeseeable weather conditions.

• Nichols v Marsland (1876): The defendant made three artificial ornamental lakes by damming a natural stream. Freak thunderstorms accompanied by torrential rain broke the banks of the artificial lakes, and this water destroyed bridges on the claimant’s land. The defendants were not liable as the extreme weather conditions amounted to an Act of God.

Question 25

[Defences to RvF]

Act of a stranger

Answer 25

If a stranger – if a stranger over whom the defendant has no control has been the cause of the escape causing the damage, then the defendant may not be liable.

• Perry v Kendricks Transport (1956): The defendants parked their bus on their parking space, having drained the tank of fuel. A stranger removed the fuel cap and a child was injured when another child threw a match into the tank, igniting fumes. A claim was made in the tort of Rylands v Fletcher but the defendants were not liable due to the act of a stranger.

Question 26

[Defences to RvF]

Volenti non fit injuria (consent)

Answer 26

There will be no liability where the claimant has consented to the thing that is accumulated by the defendant.

• Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (1943): The claimant leased a shop next to a theatre from the defendant. The shop suffered flood damage when pipes from the theatres’ sprinkler system burst due to icy weather conditions. The defendant was not liable in a Rylands v Fletcher case. It was decided that the sprinkler system was also for the benefit of the claimant who was ruled to have consented to it as it had been installed before the lease was signed.

Question 27

[Defences to RvF]

Wrongful act of third party

Answer 27

This was shown in the case of Styrene Packaging.

Question 28

[Defences to RvF]

Statutory authority

Answer 28

If the terms of an Act of Parliament authorise the defendant’s action, this may amount to a defence. This was argued in the case of Charing Cross Electricity Co. v Hydraulic Power Co (1914).

Question 29

[Defences to RvF]

Contributory negligence

Answer 29

Where the claimant is partly responsible for the escape of the ‘thing’ then Contributory Negligence applies and damages may be reduced according to the amount of the claimant’s fault.

Question 30

Rememdies to RvF

Answer 30

A claimant must show damage to, or destruction of, their property to succeed in a claim for damages.

The level of damages will be the cost of repair or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed.