Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

tort > intro to Rylands 1 > Flashcards

intro to Rylands 1 Flashcards

1
Q

Benning v Wong (Australian High Court)

what did Menzies J say the point of Rylands is (3)

A
  • that the exercise of care is irrelevant
  • Rylands v Fletcher contains no requirement of intention, recklessness, or negligence
  • outcome-based strict liability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what does Hart say about strict liability

A

-‘it is a way of attaching a special surcharge of legal responsibility to certain types of conduct’

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

what is a special surcharge of legal responsibility mean

A
  • If you’re doing something risky you have to manage the risk, if you don’t, you can expect to be met with a surcharge of legal responsibility- the claim will likely to be successful for C
  • this is a way of giving Ds a very powerful incentive to manage risk
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what is the rule in RF

A

-if there is something on D’s land that is likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in his peril, if not, he is liable for damage which results from the escape- but there are defences (Blackburn J)

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

why was there a rule made in RF (2)

A
  • because trespass to land was not applicable- interference was not direct
  • PN was not applicable- the interference has so be continuing or recurring
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what are the 3 instances of strict liability as Blackburn J held in RF

A
  • cattle-trespass
  • nuisance by escaping fumes
  • the flow of filth from a privy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what does Fleming say that Blackburn J created

A

that he created a new law by extending the incidence of strict liability to the general category of all inherently dangerous substances’. (Something likely to do harm if it escapes.)

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

what did Lord Cairns say that RF only applied to

A

Rylands v Fletcher only applied to damage from a non-natural user of the land.

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

what is the decision procedure for a RF claim (7)

A
  • accumulation
  • non-natural use
  • escape
  • damage
  • remoteness
  • defences
  • the point or purpose of the rule
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what does Furred say the term ‘risk’ refers to

A

‘The term risk refers to the probability of damage … associated with a hazard’

-If you accumulate something dangerous, you’re generating risk, it could burst, cause damage, if you accumulate a lot, you’re driving up the risk

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

which case does the idea of ‘risk’ arise in

A

Hancock and Shankland- Lord Scarman on ‘the probability of a consequence’

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

how can we link risk to intention

A

if the risk is so high there might have been intention to cause it

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

what is accumulation (3)

A
  • the thing that later escapes must be brought onto D’s land
  • accumulation must be voluntary
  • Where D is instrumental in causing things naturally on the land to escape- RF applies (Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co Ltd)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what course of action is brought if something natural moves from Ds land on to the Cs

A

a measured duty of care action- Leakey v National Trust- no liability under Rylands v Fletcher for escape of things naturally on the land.

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

accumulation of a non-natural use case

A

Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co Ltd

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

2 cases where natural escapes of something cannot amount to an action under RF

A
  • self-sown vegetation: Giles v Walker

- falling rock due to weathering: Pontardawe Rural District Council v Moore-Gwyn

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

escape of GM crops- does this amount to a claim under RF?

A

The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (2002) thought that Rylands v Fletcher had relevance vis-à-vis escapes of GM crops

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what does Newark say about Lord Cairns introducing an additional requirement (non-natural use(

A

he says Lord Cairns did not introduce an additional requirement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what does Jenny Steele say about the non-natural use requirement

A

‘The non-natural use requirement has subsequently been taken to be an additional requirement for the application of the rule’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Rickards v Lothian (Privy Council)- per Lord Moulton

what does he say about non-natural use

A

‘It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what 2 things must non-natural uses be distinguished from

A

a) ordinary use of the land
(b) such use as is proper for the general benefit of the community’.
- If the D does (b) but it serves the interest of the public- it is fine.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what does Steele say about Lord Moulton’s claim concerning general health

A

Lord Moulton’s claims concerning ‘general benefit’ to the community have been rejected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Read v Lyons (House of Lords):

what does Lord Porter say the relevant question is

A

whether the particular object can be dangerous’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

what words do Lords Macmillan, Uthwatt, and Simonds make use of

(Read v Lyons)

A

‘dangerous’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Read v Lyons

what does Lord Porter say the question is whether a use is ‘natural’ or ‘non-natural’

A

whether a use is ‘natural’ or ‘non-natural’ is ‘a question of fact subject to a ruling of the judge’. (Strong discretion.)

-Lord Porter: ‘All the circumstances of the time and place and practice of mankind must be taken into consideration’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Transco v Stockport MBC (House of Lords)

outcome- Lord Bingham’s speech

A
  • D not liable
  • the use by the Council of its land … was entirely normal and routine’; non-natural use has to do with uses that are ‘extraordinary and unusual’.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

what does Lord Molton say in Richards v Lothian about non-natural use

A

‘Increased danger to others’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

how does Lord Porter describe in Read v Lyons about non-natural use

A

‘dangerous’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

how does Lord Bingham describe non-natural use in Transco v Stockport

A

‘extraordinary and unusual’

30
Q

what does Fletcher say on Roland’s v Fletcher about non-natural use

A

‘Critical feature of RF is that the D created the risk of harm to the C when the C is not creating the same risk for the D’- gives one incentive to manage risk

-‘non-reciprocal risk imposition’

31
Q

non-natural use

name of case where an explosives factory was identified as a non-natural use

A

Rainham Chemical Works Ltd

32
Q

non-natural use

wartime context case- give quote

A

Read v Lyons

‘benefit to the community from the manufacture of munitions in wartime’ may support the conclusion that the use is natural.

33
Q

non-natural use case about trees and shrubs being non-natural use if they are poisonous

A

Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board

34
Q

non-natural use and abnormal risk

what approach was taking in Mason v Levy Auto Parts

A

a multifactorial approach

(a) quantity of material;
(b) the way it was stored;
(c) the character of the neighbourhood

35
Q

non-natural use and abnormal risk

what did McKenna J say in Mason v Levy Auto Parts about non-natural use

A

‘I feel the difficulty which any judge must feel in deciding what is a non-natural use’.

36
Q

non-natural use and abnormal risk

North American case

A

Crown Diamond Paint Co v Arcadian Holding Realty Ltd

37
Q

non-natural use and abnormal risk

Crown Diamond Paint Co v Arcadian Holding Realty Ltd- how was non-natural associated with by Rand J

A

non-natural use associated with ‘enhanced risk’

38
Q

non-natural use and abnormal risk

Schubert v Sterling Trusts Corp: per Hogg J- what did he associate non-natural use with and what was the relevant concern

A

‘increased danger’

relevant concern: pursuit of profit by D for ‘selfish and self-serving’ reasons: e.g., Gertsen v Metropolitan Toronto, per Lerner J.

39
Q

what is the First Restatement of Torts

A

a strict liability regime identified as appropriate in the case of ‘ultrahazardous’ activities- incentive for D to manage risk

40
Q

what is the Second Restatement Torts

A

a strict liability regime identified as appropriate in the case of ‘abnormally dangerous activities’.

41
Q

what are the relevant concerns in the Second Restatement Torts (6)

A

high risk; likelihood of great harm; harm cannot be avoided by reasonable care; the activity is uncommon; inappropriate at the particular site; value to the community of D’s activity. (A balancing exercise.)

42
Q

Dobb’s analysis of the Second Restatement of Torts (3)

A
  • none of the six factors is a necessary element
  • ‘These factors look like a poorly disguised negligence regime’
  • ‘If strict liability is to be retained, the six factors represent a poor way to delineate its contours’
43
Q

non-natural use as a control mechanism

what does Lord Goff say in Cambridge Water Co (2)

A
  • ‘natural use of land’ and ‘reasonable use’ are all control mechanisms
  • courts should not be developing a theory of liability for ultra-hazardous activities
44
Q

non-natural use as a control mechanism

what were Lord Goff’s 2 relevant concerns in Cambridge Water Co

A
  • separation of powers

- judicial role

45
Q

requirement of control

Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire outcome (3)

A
  • D need not have a proprietary interest in the land from which the escape (of something dangerous) occurs
  • But D must have control of the source of danger
  • Direct interference (trespass to land) held to be justifiable by necessity
46
Q

remoteness

what does Lord Goff say in Cambridge Water Co about foreseeability of damage

A

‘foreseeability of damage of the relevant type should be regarded as a prerequisite of liability … under the rule’

47
Q

which case brought about the remoteness test and which affirmed it

A
  • found in Wagon Mound

- affirmed in Transco v Stockport

48
Q

which theme makes it hard for judges to determine whether something can follow the rule in RF

A

dangerousness

49
Q

dangerousness cases (4)

A
  • Jones v Festiniog Railway Co- sparks from a train set fire to a haystack
  • Batchellor v Tunbridge Wells Gas Co : gas likely to pollute water supplies
  • National Telephone Co v Baker: electricity
  • Smith v Great Western Railway: oil
50
Q

what is the criticism of RF

what did Lord Porter say

A
  • it is unclear what the rule in RF is supposed to be for because there is a mixed body of case law
  • Lord Porter in Read v Lyons said ‘it may become necessary to lay down principles’ for the determination of cases.
51
Q

what are the 6 defences

A
  • act of God (Nichols v Marsland)
  • unforeseeable act of third party (Rickards v Lothian)
  • consent (AG v Cory Brothers)
  • necessity (Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire)
  • statutory authority
  • default of C (Dunn v Birmingham Canal Navigation)
52
Q

why can RF be classified as a tort of prima facie strict liability

A

because if you produce the harmful outcome, the presumption is that liability can be imposed

-but it is a presumption because D may be able to rely on a defence

53
Q

Burnie Port Authority v General Jones outcome

  • outcome
  • occupier in a position of …
  • D under what duty?
  • Steele’s opinion?
A
  • D held liable in negligence- RF absorbed into negligence law
  • occupier in a position of ‘control’; occupier of neighbouring premises in a ‘position of special vulnerability and dependence’; a ‘special relationship of proximity’
  • D under a non-delegable duty
  • ‘standard of care would be variable- depending on hazardous nature of the activity’- Steele
54
Q

what did Lord Hoffman say in Transco about RF and insurance (3)

A
  • insurance is relevant to the non-natural use requirement of the rule in Rylands.
  • The relevant use should be classified as ‘natural’ where an occupier (potential claimant) can reasonably be expected to insure against the risk(s) it generates
  • Only those risks that are uninsurable should be classified as non-natural
55
Q

how does Lord Hoffman bring together insurance and policy

what case is this similar to

A

‘a policy of requiring the costs of a commercial enterprise to be internalised’

-this will encourage Ds to internalise costs of damage done by the operation of their business (similar to Gertsen v Metropolitan Toronto)

56
Q

what 2 opposing policy agendas are there for why RF may be used

A

const internalisation v entrepreneurship

57
Q

Steele on Lord Hoffmann’s approach to Rylands v Fletcher (2)

A
  • ‘This approach identifies a reason of policy which might both justify retention of the rule, and at the same time be used to keep it within ascertainable limits’
  • ‘Lord Hoffmann would place the burden of insuring against such losses on the claimant provided the risk is readily insurable’
58
Q

RF and fire

case

A

Stannard v Gore

59
Q

RF and fire

Stannard v Gore outcome

A

CoA: held in favour of the defendant.

Storing tyres on land is not a dangerous activity, was not non-natural in the circumstances, and there was no relevant escape (Kidner)

Therefore, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher did not apply to these facts

60
Q

Musgrove v Pandelis outcome

A

a fire began in the engine of a car stored in a garage. The fire spread and damaged neighbouring property. The occupier of the garage was held liable for the resulting damage.

61
Q

what was the rule formulated in Standard about fire

A

the fire must be brought onto D’s land and, later, escape.

62
Q

what does Kidner say about the outcome in Standard

A

‘There was no liability under Rylands as the tyres themselves had not escaped and the fire was not something that had been “brought onto the land” by the defendant’.

63
Q

what case can we compare Stannard to

A

Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co- Rylands applicable where, after an explosion, damage was caused by something other than the explosives themselves (debris).

64
Q

what do Stannard and Transco say about insurance

  • Ward LJ’s statement in Stannard
  • lord Hoffman’s statement in Transco
A
  • have insurance cover for losses occasioned by fire- Ward LJ in Stannard
  • in Transco, Lord Hoffmann had stated that there should be no liability under Rylands if the resulting damage was something against which C could reasonably be expected to insure.
65
Q

what was the effect of Stannard (2)

A
  • Courts reluctant to apply RF in fire cases
  • Rylands is unlikely to develop into a general strict liability rule for damage caused by abnormally dangerous activities
66
Q

what does Laws LJ say in Arscott v Coal Authority about the rule in RF

A

‘the rule in Rylands is alive and well’

67
Q

escape of a fire

what liability might there be

A

liability in negligence, PN and RF

68
Q

Goldman v Hargrave outcome

A
  • D liable for damage on Cs premises

- measured duty of care (fault-based standard)

69
Q

Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774, section 86

when will there be no action (2)

A

a) fires arise from mere chance and

(b) are untraceable to any cause.

70
Q

when will the defence in the 1774 act not apply

A

where a fire starts accidentally but then spreads through negligence (Filliter v Phippard)

71
Q

when will Goldman v Hargrave apply

A

where C can establish negligence

72
Q

in the absence of negligence, which tort applies

A

RF

tort (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions