Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards

(25 cards)

1
Q

what is Rylands v Fletcher?

A

where a person’s property is damaged or destroyed by the escape of non-naturally stored material onto adjoining property

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

what did the HoL establish in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather?

A

identified this tort as a type of nuisance and subject to the same test of foreseeability

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

what are the 4 elements that must be proved?

A
  • the bringing onto the land and an accumulation (or storage)
  • of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes
  • which amounts to a non-natural use of the land and
  • which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Rylands v Fletcher

A

all elements present and D liable. bringing water on land and storage of water, large volume which could damage if it escapes. it’s a non-natural use of land. water escaped and caused damage

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

potential D?

A

Viscount Simon’s test in Read v Lyons, D will be owner or occupier of land who satisfies elements, D must have some control over land where material is stored

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

bringing onto land?

A

there must be a bringing onto the land of a substance,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

if material is naturally present on land, can there be liability?

A

if naturally present, then no liability Giles v Walker (1890)
weeds spread to neighboring land

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

can there be liability for something that naturally accumulates on land?

A

no, Ellison v Ministry of Defence

rainwater that accumulated naturally

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

the thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes?

A

the thing D brings onto land must be likely to cause damage if it escapes, this is test of foreseeability (not the escape that has to be foreseeable but the damage )

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

examples of things likely to cause mischeif?

A
  • gas, electricity
  • poisonous fumes
  • flag pole
  • chair from chair-o-plane (Hale v Jennings Bros)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

damage by fire?

A

Ltd v Styrene Packaging and instulation

accumulated things that were known fire risks

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

Wyvern

A

damage by fire claims are rare as it is ‘thing’ that has to escape, not fire, starting fire may be ordinary use of land

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

non-natural use of land?

A

refers to some unusual use of land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what are some natural uses of land?

A
  • fire in a grate that spread’s to C
  • defective electric wiring that causes fire
  • domestic water supply
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

case for domestic water supply as natural part of land?

A

Rickards v Lothian

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

British Celanese v A H Hunt

A

use of land is natural because of the benefit obtained by local population

17
Q

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (ignore)

A

storage of chemicals in factory is non natural use of land, regardless of benefit to local population

18
Q

Read v J Lyons &Co and ‘the thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage?

A

material has to escape from one property onto adjoining property, no escape means no liability

19
Q

Hale v Jennings Bros

A

‘thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage’ is not always strictly applied,
here, (chair o plane) stalls both operated on same land, neither stall holders owned the land yet liability was imposed

20
Q

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather and foreseeability

A

damage must be foreseeable (not escape), damage was not foreseeable and too remote from the site spillage

21
Q

what is the defence of statutory authority?

A

if terms of an Act of parliament authorise D’s actions, this may be a defence

22
Q

what is the defence of ‘an act of a stranger’?

A

if a stranger whom D has no control has been the cause of the escape causing the damage, then D may not be liable

perry v Kendricks transport transport

23
Q

what is the defence of ‘an act of god’?

A

defence may succeed where there are extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight can provide against’, unforeseeable weather conditions
nicholas v marsland

24
Q

what is the defence contributory negligence?

A

where C is partly responsible for the escape of the thing, the law reform act applies and damages may be reduced according to amount of C’s fault

25
what is the defence of volenti non fit injuria (consent)?
no liability where C has consented to the thing that is accumulated by D