Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

History

Answer 1

Rose as a result of the Industrial Revolution. As more land was being used for industrial use, neighbouring properties were at risk from damage caused by the escape of dangerous substances. Judges attempted to impose strict liability on the owners of these industrial sites , particularly becaue they were usign the land for profit and it was unfair on neighbours.

Question 2

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 2

Rylands (D) was a mill owner and hired contractors to create a reservoir. Due to the contractors’ negligence, there was a fault which meant once the reservoir was filled, water flooded the neighbouring mines (Fletcher’s land).

Question 3

Requirements of the tort
(definition)

Answer 3

-The BRINGING onto the land and an ACCUMULATION
-Of a thing likely to cause MISCHIEF if it ESCAPES
-Which amounts to a NON-NATURAL use of the land, and
-Which does escape and cause REASONABLY FORESEEABLE damage to an adjoining property.

Question 4

Potential claimants

Answer 4

The claimant must have a legal interest in the land. (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
This was confirmed in Transco v Stockport Met Borough Council:
The pipe leaked and damaged a nearby gas pipeline owned by Transco. Transco sued the Council under Rylands v Fletcher for strict liability.The House of Lords ruled against Transco. The Council wasn’t liable because the water wasn’t a non-natural use of land.
Lord Bingham explained it should be “extraordinary or unusual” use of the land rather than “non-natural”.

Question 5

Potential defendants

Answer 5

Either the owner or occupier of the land who has some sort of control over the land on which the material is accumulated.

Question 6

Personal injury

Answer 6

HoL in Transco commented, obiter dicta, that it isn’t possible

Question 7

Bringing onto the land and accumulating

Answer 7

Must be brought onto the land rather than naturally there.
Giles v Walker- D not liable for seeds from thistles blewing onto and damaging C’s land as thistles hadn’t been brought onto the land but had naturally accumulated.
No liability is accumulates naturally.
Ellison v Ministry of Defence- D constructed bulk fuel installation at Greenham Common Airfield. This caused rain water which had accumulated on the airfield to run off and flood neighbouring land. The court held that the construction work was an ordinary use of the land and therefore not unnatural.

Question 8

The thing is likely to do a mischief if it escapes

Answer 8

This is a test of foreseeability. It’s not the escape that must be foreseen, but the damage.
Hale v Jennings Bros- A ‘chair-o-plane’ car on a fairground became detatched and injured a storeholder. Owner of the ride liable as the risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose.
Stannard v Gore- A fire occurred in D’s tyre-fitting premises which spread to neighbour’s adjoining premises. CoA dismissed claim as it was the fire that escaped.

Question 9

A non-natural use of land

Answer 9

Rickards v Lothian- Used the term ‘non-ordinary’. Unknown person turned on water taps & blocked plug holes on D’s premises, causing damage to the flat below. D wasn’t liable under R v F as the use of water in domestic pipes was a natural use of land.
Transco v Stockport Met Borough Council

Question 10

The thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage

Answer 10

Thing must escape from one property to the adjoining one.
Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd- A munitions inspector, when inspecting the interior of a munitions factory, was injured along with employees when a shell exploded. HoL held that the rule didn’t apply as there was “no escape at all of the relevant kind”.
Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather- Eastern Counties Leather used chemicals in their tannery. Some chemicals seeped into the ground and polluted Cambridge Water’s borehole. The court said Eastern Counties Leather wasn’t liable as the pollution wasn’t reasonably foreseeable, so strict liability didn’t apply.

Question 11

Defences

Answer 11

Volenti (consent)- There will be no liability where C has consented to the thing that has been accumulated.

Act of a stranger- If a stranger, over whom D has no control over, has been the cause if the escape causing the damage, then D may not be liable. Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd- Ds parked their bus on their parking space, having drained the tank of petrol. Stranger removed the petrol cap, and a child was injured when a match was thrown into the tank igniting fumes. There was a valid defence and no liability.

Act of God- Defence may succeed where there are extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight can provide against’. Nichols v Marsland- D made 3 artificial lakes by damming a natural stream. Freak thunderstorms and rain broke the banks of the lake, causing the destruction of bridges on C’s land. There was no liability as the weather conditions were so extreme and amounted to an Act of God.

Statutory Authority- If the terms of an Act of Parliament authorise D’s actions, this may constitute to a defence.

Contributory Negligence- Where C is partly responsible for the escape of the thing, then the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 applies, and damages may be reduced according to the extent of C’s fault.

Question 12

Remedies

Answer 12

C must show damage or destruction of property in order to succeed in a claim for damages. The level awarded will be the cost of repair or replacement of the property damaged.
Injunctions.
Damages for property.