REMEDIES FOR RYLAND V FLETCHER-FS Flashcards
(10 cards)
What are the core defences available to a Rylands v Fletcher claim that mirror those in private nuisance?
The standard defences include:
* Statutory authority * Act of a third party * Act of God * Consent (volenti non fit injuria) * Contributory negligence
What does the defence of statutory authority mean in the context of Rylands v Fletcher?
If the defendant was authorised by statute to undertake the activity and the escape was a necessary or inevitable consequence, they may avoid liability.
When does the act of a third party defence apply under Rylands v Fletcher?
If the escape was caused solely by the act of an independent third party, and the defendant had no control and took reasonable precautions, they may avoid liability.
What is the act of God defence under Rylands v Fletcher?
This applies where the escape is caused by a natural event so rare, unforeseeable, and extreme (e.g., earthquake, lightning) that no human foresight or precaution could prevent it.
How does the defence of common benefit operate in Rylands v Fletcher?
If the dangerous item was stored for the mutual benefit of both parties, the claimant is deemed to have consented to the risk, and the defendant may raise this as a complete defence.
What is the defence of act or default of the claimant in Rylands v Fletcher?
If the claimant’s actions directly caused the escape of the dangerous item, this serves as a full defence and bars the claim entirely.
What if the claimant’s actions only contributed to the escape?
In that case, the defendant may raise contributory negligence, which will reduce the damages awarded rather than eliminate liability.
What are the two main remedies available in a successful Rylands v Fletcher claim?
The remedies are:
* Damages (most common)
* Injunction (less common due to the isolated nature of the escape)
Why are damages the more common remedy under Rylands v Fletcher?
Because Rylands v Fletcher generally deals with isolated incidents of property damage or economic loss, for which compensation is more appropriate than ongoing restriction.
When might an injunction be granted in a Rylands v Fletcher case?
Only if the defendant’s actions present a repeating or continuing risk, which is rare given that Rylands v Fletcher usually involves one-time escapes.
