Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

What does Rylands v Fletcher do?

Answer 1

imposes liability for the escape of something from your land that causes damage

Question 2

What is the quote for Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 2

‘a person who brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything that is likely to do mischief if it escapes, is liable for all damages which is the natural consequence of its escape.’

Question 3

What are the six element that need to be proven?

Answer 3

1. D is the OCCUPIER of the land and has CONTROL over it
2. Accumulation
3. Likely to cause mischief if it escapes.
4. There is an ESCAPE
5. Non-natural use of the land
6. Type of damage is foreseeable

Question 4

Cases for Control/Occupier

Answer 4

• Hunter v Canary Wharf - must have an interest in the land
• Weller & Co Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute - claim failed as they had no interest in the land.
• Smith v Scott - Control was not with the D therefore claim failed.
• Rigby v Chief Constable of Northampton - R v F applied even though van was on the highway.

Question 5

Case for Accumulation

Answer 5

• Mason v Levy Auto Parts - storage of large quantities

Question 6

Cases for Likely to cause mischief

Answer 6

• The thing could normally be safe if it didn’t escape, it does not have to be intrinsically dangerous, just has to cause mischief if it does escape.
• Hale v Jenning Bros - a chair-o-plane flew off and damaged adjoining land.
• Hillier v Air Ministry - electricity escaped from high voltage cables laid under the claimant’s land and electrocuted his cows.

Question 7

Cases for Escape

Answer 7

• Stannard v Gore - defendant had stacks of tyres which caught on fire and damaged the claimants land, but only the fire had escaped not the accumulation of tyres, so not liable.
• Musgrove v Pandelis - fire in garage from a car’s petrol, there had been negligence so a claim was allowed by the neighbouring property.

Question 8

Cases for Non-natural use

Answer 8

• Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather - a leather factory, spillages for many years, seeps through door over years, caused pollution for a water company BUT not liable as danger was not known, the storage of chemicals on the premises was seen as a ‘classic case of non-natural use’.
  -Transco v Stockport - had stated that the ‘ordinary use’ test is a preferable test to natural user.
• if something is stored in large quantities then it is most likely to be a non-natural use - Mason v Levy Auto Parts

Question 9

Cases for Damage

Answer 9

• Transco confirmed that R v F will not include claims for personal injury
• The damage must be reasonably foreseeable, not the escape, the type of damage.
• Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather - ‘the defendant must have known or ought to have reasonably foreseen that damage of the relevant type’

Question 10

What are the defences?

Answer 10

• Act of God
• Act of a stranger - a person that D has no control over and has caused the escape
• Volenti - consent
• Statutory Authority - an act of parliament authorises the defendant’s actions
• Contributory Negligence