Rylands V Fletcher Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is the tort of Rylands v Fletcher?
A strict liability tort concerning damage to neighbouring land caused by the escape of a dangerous thing from the defendant’s land.
What does strict liability mean in Rylands v Fletcher?
It means the claimant does not have to prove fault or negligence—only that the conditions of the tort are met.
Who can sue under Rylands v Fletcher?
Anyone with a proprietary interest in the land affected, e.g. owners, tenants, or leaseholders.
Who can be sued under Rylands v Fletcher?
The owner or occupier of land who meets all four requirements of the tort.
What are the four key requirements of Rylands v Fletcher?
- Accumulation of a dangerous thing
- Non-natural use of the land
- The thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes
- The thing escapes and causes foreseeable damage
What is ‘accumulation’ in Rylands v Fletcher?
The defendant must bring something onto their land that is not naturally present.
Case examples:
• Rylands v Fletcher – water for the reservoir was not natural
• Miles v Forest Rock Granite – explosives were brought onto land, causing rocks to escape
• Giles v Walker – no accumulation as thistles grew naturally
How do you identify accumulation in an exam scenario?
Look for words like collected or stored—they indicate something was deliberately brought onto the land.
What is ‘non-natural use of land’?
Use that is extraordinary or unusual in context—not part of everyday domestic activity.
Key cases:
• Transco PLC v Stockport MBC – Lord Bingham: must be “extraordinary and unusual”
• Rickards v Lothian – domestic water pipes = natural use
• Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather – storing chemicals = non-natural use
• Mason v Levy Autoparts – court considered amount and method of storage
What is meant by ‘likely to do mischief if it escapes’?
There must be a foreseeable risk that the thing could cause damage if it escapes.
Important: It’s the damage that must be foreseeable—not the escape itself.
Cases:
• Transco – must pose an exceptionally high risk of danger
• Cambridge Water – damage must be foreseeable
• Hale v Jennings – personal injury claim succeeded under Rylands v Fletcher
What counts as an ‘escape’ in Rylands v Fletcher?
An escape occurs when the thing moves from a place under the defendant’s control to a place outside of it.
Case:
• Read v Lyons – escape means from D’s land to outside
• Wyvern Tyres v Gore – the fire escaped, but not the tyres that caused it, so no liability
What must be foreseeable in Rylands v Fletcher claims?
The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable, as in negligence law.
Case:
• Cambridge Water – remoteness is tested using The Wagon Mound principle
What are the defences to Rylands v Fletcher?
- Act of a stranger – Perry v Kendricks Transport
- Act of God – Nichols v Marsland (unforeseeable natural event)
- Statutory authority – authorised by law
- Volenti non fit injuria – voluntary acceptance of the risk
- Contributory negligence – claimant’s own actions contributed to the damage
What counts as an ‘Act of God’ in Rylands v Fletcher?
An unforeseeable, extraordinary natural event that no human foresight could protect against.
Case:
• Nichols v Marsland
What is the ‘Act of a stranger’ defence?
If the escape was caused by someone outside the control of the defendant, they may not be liable.
Case:
• Perry v Kendricks Transport
What remedies are available under Rylands v Fletcher?
• General damages for property damage
• Cost of repair or replacement of damaged property
• Damage must be reasonably foreseeable (The Wagon Mound)
