rylands v fletcher Flashcards
what is rylands v fletcher
- strict liability tort
- rule is a sub-species (type) of nuisance
what happened in rylands v fletcher?
the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. They filled the reservoir with water. As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff’s mines on the adjoining property.
when is a defendant liable for rylands v fletcher?
if on his land, he accumulates a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of that land and; the thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage.
in a case of rylands v fletcher, the claimant must show:
1) That D brought something onto his land (accumulation);
2) That D made a “non-natural use” of his land ;
3)The thing was something likely to do mischief if it escaped;
4)The thing did escape and caused reasonably foreseeable damage.
- The defendant brought something onto his land (accumulation)
The accumulation must be artificial
the claim will fail if: If it is a natural accumulation e.g.
rainwater in Ellison v MOD or
thistles/weeds in Giles v Walker
2) That D made a “non-natural use” of his land ;
+cases
- the legal definition of ‘non-natural’ means it is a use of land that is not common place
- Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather - chemicals were stored on the land. The judge deemed this to be a perfect example of non-natural.
- Mason v Auto Levy Auto parts - flammable materials/oil.
- Rickards v Lothian - water in pipes being pumped up the building was commonplace and therefore NOT non-natural.
3) The thing was something likely to do mischief if it escaped
+cases
- Rylands v Fletcher - a large body of water
- the thing itself does not have to be inherently dangerous - Shiffman v Order of St John of Jerusalem where a flagpole fell off a building.
- it can also be seen in Hale v Jennings where a chair flew off a ride as was classed as likely to cause mischief if it escaped.
4)The thing did escape and caused reasonably foreseeable damage.
Rylands v Fletcher - the water moved onto C’s land
Read v Lyons - held that escape meant ‘crossing a land boundary’ the explosion and fragments never crossed a land boundary are were thus not an escape
The thing itself doesn’t always need to escape
Miles v Forest Rock Granite - a product of the thing did e.g. the explosion
Hale v Jennings shows the courts will sometime deviate from this rule as the chair never crossed a land boundary.
When it escaped it must be classed reasonable to foresee damage.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather – it was not due to the concrete floor and the chemicals polluting a water source 1.5 miles away - not reasonably forseeable
defences to rylands v fletcher
Acts of a stranger
Act of God
Statutory authority
Consent
Common benefit and
Fault of the claimant
Act of a stranger
- defendant will not be liable if the escape is caused by the deliberate and unforeseen act of a stranger
- Rickards v Lothian
Act of God
- a natural event so enormous that it cannot be either foreseen or guarded against. If an escape is caused by such an event, then the D is not liable as there is nothing he could have done to stop it.
- two contrasting cases. Nichols v Marsland - exceptionally heavy rain caused the artificial lakes and waterways to be flooded and damage adjoining land - could use defence
- Greenock Corp v Caledonian Railway - diverted a river to build a playground. there was negligence in the construction/building works. Not an “Act of God”.
Statutory authority
A statute may impose a duty on the D to accumulate the thing which has escaped. Therefore, prima facie a D is not liable if the escape occurs during activities authorised by an Act of Parliament, provided negligence is not involved.
Green v Chelsea Waterworks Company - D was not liable when one of its water pipes burst and flooded the claimant’s land. The defendant had a statutory duty to maintain a supply of water
Consent
The express or implied consent of the claimant to the presence of source of the danger, provided there has been no negligence by the defendant, will be a defence.
In Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (Birmingham) Ltd - the D employed a sprinkler system to protect the building from fire. The C also occupied the building and complained when stock was damaged by water from the sprinklers. It was held that the water supply benefited both C and D. There could be no liability.
Common Benefit
If the source of the danger was maintained for the benefit of both the claimant and defendant, the defendant will not be liable for its escape.
e.g. a system of water pipes to different parts of a large building.
Fault of the claimant
If the escape is the fault of the claimant there will be no liability. Alternatively, there may be contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.
Ponting v Noakes - C’s horse leant across a boundary fence to reach and eat from a poisonous tree and the horse died. It was held that the damage had been caused by the horse’s intrusion into the defendant’s land.
