Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
(39 cards)
What is the legal principle established in Rylands v Fletcher?
When D. has accumulated something dangerous on their land, D. is responsible when it escapes causing damage to neighboring land.
This case is foundational in tort law, particularly concerning liability for hazardous activities.
What are the six elements required for a claim under Rylands v Fletcher?
- C. must be able to sue D.
- D. must be able to bring/accumulate something on their land.
- That thing must have escaped.
- There must be exceptionally high risk of danger if it were to escape.
- That thing must cause reasonably foreseeable damage.
- D.’s use of the thing must be non-natural use of land.
Each of these elements is critical for establishing liability in cases involving dangerous substances or activities.
Who can the claimant (C.) be in a Rylands v Fletcher case?
Anyone with a proprietary right in the land where the problem started.
This emphasizes the importance of property rights in tort claims related to land use.
What case illustrates the principle of who can be the defendant (D.) in Rylands v Fletcher?
Read v Lyons, where a munitions factory explosion occurred.
This case shows that the defendant is typically the party controlling the land where the dangerous activity takes place.
In the case of Transco v SMBC, what incident occurred related to Rylands v Fletcher?
A water pipe leaked on a gas pipe.
This case further clarifies the responsibilities and liabilities associated with the accumulation of dangerous substances.
Fill in the blank: The thing accumulated by D. must have _______.
escaped.
The escape of the dangerous substance is a crucial element for establishing liability.
True or False: The use of the dangerous thing by D. must be considered natural use of land.
False.
The use must be non-natural for liability to be established under Rylands v Fletcher.
What must be proven about the risk associated with the thing accumulated by D.?
There must be an exceptionally high risk of danger if it were to escape.
This element addresses the inherent dangers involved in the activity or substance in question.
What must a defendant do in relation to the first element of liability?
Must bring/accumulate something onto land
Refers to the principle that the defendant must have brought something onto their property that could potentially cause harm.
What case illustrates the first element regarding rainwater?
Ellison v Ministry of Defence
This case involved the accumulation of rainwater and its implications for liability.
What does the second element of liability focus on?
Thing on defendant’s land must have escaped
This element emphasizes that the object must leave the defendant’s control to establish liability.
What case demonstrates the concept of escape in relation to control?
Read v Lyons
In this case, the concept of escape was analyzed concerning whether the item was under the defendant’s control.
What does the case Stannard v Gore emphasize about fire liability?
Must have brought the fire onto his land, not just objects that worsen it
This case clarifies that liability for fire damage requires the defendant to have introduced the fire source onto their property.
What is the fourth element of liability related to danger?
Exceptionally high risk of danger
This element assesses whether the potential danger from an escape is significantly high.
Which case questions the foreseeability of escape in relation to risk?
Transco v SMBC
This case discusses whether one can foresee a very high risk of danger if the item were to escape.
True or False: Foreseeability of escape matters in establishing liability.
False
Only the damage caused by the escape matters, not the foreseeability of the escape itself.
What must a defendant do in relation to the first element of liability?
Must bring/accumulate something onto land
Refers to the principle that the defendant must have brought something onto their property that could potentially cause harm.
What case illustrates the first element regarding rainwater?
Ellison v Ministry of Defence
This case involved the accumulation of rainwater and its implications for liability.
What does the second element of liability focus on?
Thing on defendant’s land must have escaped
This element emphasizes that the object must leave the defendant’s control to establish liability.
What case demonstrates the concept of escape in relation to control?
Read v Lyons
In this case, the concept of escape was analyzed concerning whether the item was under the defendant’s control.
What does the case Stannard v Gore emphasize about fire liability?
Must have brought the fire onto his land, not just objects that worsen it
This case clarifies that liability for fire damage requires the defendant to have introduced the fire source onto their property.
What is the fourth element of liability related to danger?
Exceptionally high risk of danger
This element assesses whether the potential danger from an escape is significantly high.
Which case questions the foreseeability of escape in relation to risk?
Transco v SMBC
This case discusses whether one can foresee a very high risk of danger if the item were to escape.
True or False: Foreseeability of escape matters in establishing liability.
False
Only the damage caused by the escape matters, not the foreseeability of the escape itself.
