LAW P2 TORT (Rylands v Fletcher)

Question 1

What is rylands v fletcher?

Answer 1

Rylands v Fletcher is a form of strict liablity where a defendant may be liable for any negligent conduct.

Question 2

What is the definition of rylands v fletcher?

Answer 2

Rylands v Fletcher can be defined as an ‘escape of dangerous things’, it could be the escape of something that could be dangerous if escaped being brought onto the claimants land.

Question 3

What are the 5 points that must be proven for R v F?

Answer 3

• There must be an accumalation on D’s land
• There must be a thing likely to do mischief
• There must be a thing likely to escape from D’s land
• There must be a non natural use of land
• The damage must not be too remote

Question 4

What are the cases for the 5 points of R v F?

Answer 4

1st point:

Carstairs v Taylor, D brought water on the land to accumulate it

Giles v Walker, the thistles that caused damage to the claimants land had not been accumulated by the defendant

2nd point:

Shiffman v The grand priory of st john, D may be liable for damages due to the injuries sustained

Hale v Jennings bros, the escape of the chair from the defendant’s land leading to harm satisfied the requirements for liability

3rd point:

Read v Lyons, R v F requires an escape of hazardous material

4th point:

Transco v Stockport mbc, the councils use of land was a non-natural use of land

British Celanese ltd v AH hunt ltd, RvF applies to activities that are non-natural and result in damage to neighbouring properties

5th point:

Cambridge water v Eastern counties leather, D was not liable as the damage was too remote

The wagon mound no.1, the resulting fire damage was held to be too remote and not a reasonable foreseeable consequence of the oil spill