RYLANDS V FLETCHER

Question 1

what type of offence?

Answer 1

strict liability offence

Question 2

what kind of incidents?

Answer 2

• one-off incidents

Question 3

why was it created?

Answer 3

• because of increasing concerns about safe working conditions & environment
• raise standards & increase vigilance

Question 4

defintion

Answer 4

• given by Blackburn LJ in Rylands v Fletcher
• Rylands v Fletcher - mill owner hired contractors to create reservoir on land to supply wate to the mill, they failed to block off disused mineshafts causing water to flood through disused shafts into mine

Question 5

claimant

Answer 5

• only a person who has interest in the land affected can bring a claim

Question 6

defendant

Answer 6

• person who collects/accumulates something likely to cause mischief on land, non-natural use
• can be an occupier of the land (Read v Lyons)

Question 7

element 1 - accumulation

Answer 7

• thing brought must have accumulated D’s land
• Giles v Walker - accumulation of naturally growing things is not an accumulation

Question 8

element 2 - likely to cause mischief if escapes

Answer 8

• likely to cause mischief if escapes (hale v Jennings)
• doesn’t have to be intrinsically dangerous, but the quantity in which it is accumulated could make it dangerous (Rylands v Fletcher)

Question 9

element 3 - must be a non-natural use of land

Answer 9

• must be non-natural & extraordinary use of land (Transco)
• domestic use of land isn’t non-natural (Rickards v Lothian)
• if use of land is beneficial to the public it is natural (Celanese v AH Hunt)

Question 10

element 4 - there must be an escape

Answer 10

• must escape and cause damage
• must actually escape (read v Lyons - women injured by explosion in ammunition factory - no escape)

Question 11

foreseeability

Answer 11

• harm must be foreseeable (Cambridge water co)
• has severely restricted scope of defence

Question 12

defences

Answer 12

• consent (Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre)
• common benefit (Dunne v British gas)
• act of stranger (perry v Kendricks transport)
• act of god (Nichols v Marsland)
• statutory duty
• fault of claimant
• contributory negligence

Question 13

Remedies

Answer 13

• PI is likely to be excluded
• explained by Lord MacMillan in Read v Lyons
• before that the courts had no problem in with damages for PI which were given in Hale v Jennings