Rylands V Fletcher

Question 1

Rylands v fletcher

Answer 1

the claimant has to prove all essential elements of the tort as set out in Rylands V Fletcher

There must be, for the defendant’s purposes a bringing onto the land and accumulating of a thing (Rylands v fletcher and Ellison v ministry of defence)

…likely to do mischief If it escapes - Transco p/c v Stockport MBC (2003)

The C must show that the D was making a non-natural use of his land

The C can only recover for damage which is reasonably foreseeable

Question 2

C will need a legal interest in the land

Answer 2

C will need a legal interest in the land (similar to nuisance).

This was considered in:

Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) and confirmed in

Transco p/c v Stockport MBC (2003)

Question 3

the second element of the tort- likely to do mischie

Answer 3

2. the second element of the tort- likely to do mischief

Transco p/c v Stockport MBC (2003)-The current position is from Transco v Stockport MBC (2003).

A modern-day explanation is that the thing must be dangerous or pose an ‘exceptional risk’, usually including hazardous materials such as chemicals, explosives etc.

Before we look at Transco - it is important to know what ‘mischief” ha included in the past

the modern test of mischief after the case of Transco V Stockport

A D will not now incur liability if they could not have foreseen an ‘exceptionally high risk of danger’ should whatever was brought onto their land escape.

Question 4

The thing must “escape” from the land of which the defendant is in occupation or control

Answer 4

The thing must “escape” from the land of which the defendant is in occupation or control-RVF was established to deal with isolated escapes from land and therefore proof of an actual escape - Read v Lyons & Co. (1947)-No claim in R v F as no escape- ‘Escape’ for the purposes of R v F, means escape from a place which the D has occupation of, or control over, to a place which is outside his occupation or control.

› Miles v Forest (1918)

There had been an escape - the blast itself

Question 5

The C must show that the D was making a non-natural use of his land

Answer 5

The C must show that the D was making a non-natural use of his land Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

Chemicals which were stored on their land by the D’s seeped into the underground water supply used by the C

At the time the chemicals were accumulated, the amount of contamination was within acceptable standards.

Some time later the standards changes The change in the law could not be foreseen by the Defendants and they were not liable The interference must have caused some damage to the C.

C must prove that the interference actually caused the damage under the rules of causation. The test for remoteness of damage is reasonable foreseeability.

Question 6

defences to rylands v fletcher

Answer 6

Defences of Rylands V Fletcher

• Liability in R v F is said to be strict

But as liability is strict and not absolute, there are certain defences available to the action.

Consent to the tort (volenti non fit injuria) *

Common Benefit Act of a Stranger

Act of God

Statutory Authority

Contributory Negligence

Question 7

remedies of rylands v fletcher

Answer 7

Remedies

Injunctions

Property damage

Damages for property damage

No damages for personal injury