Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
(11 cards)
Why did the rule in R v F came about?
It arose as a result of the industrial revolution in the 19th century. The industrial revolution saw a time when a manufacturing of goods moved from small shops and homes to large factories. This shift brought about changes in culture as people moved from rural areas to big cities in order to work.
What is the rule of R v F?
A D is liable if, on his land, he accumulates a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of that land , and the thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage
Who is the claimant of a R v F claim?
The same as for nuisance i.e. somebody with a legal or proprietary interest in the land: Hunter v Canary Wharf
Who is the defendant of a R v F claim?
The D will be the person with control over the land/premises from which an escape took place. However, who has ‘control’ is sometimes less rigidly applied in an R v F: SMith v Scott
For a claim in R v F a claimant has to show what?
- D brought and accumulated something on his land
- That the use of land must be non-natural or ‘extraordinary’
- The thing will be likely to cause michief is it escapes from the D’s land
- The thing escaping causes damage
- The damage must be foreseeable
What is meant by the D brought and accumulated something on his land?
Giles v Walker: illustrates the issue of accumulation of something on land. In this case the seeds from some thistles growing naturally on D’s land blew on the C’s land. However, there was no liability as D had not accumulated the thistles. They grew naturally. The key difference is natura; accumulation and artificial accumulation: British Celanese v AH Hunt
What is meant by the use of land must be non-natural or ‘extraordinary’?
Cambridge Water: clearly sets out what is considered to be non-natural usage. It is worth noting that chemicals will always be considered non-natural usage. The difficult part is the addition of the word extraordinary in Transco. This doesn’t mean a use which is artifical or man-made, but rather a use which is not commonplace
What is meant by the thing will be likely to cause mischief if it escapes?
There must be an escape of the dangerous substance from the D’s land controlled by the C - the case of Read v Lyons clearly explains what is meant by escape. Other than R v F, there are two other cases illustrating what is meant by escape: Hale v Jenning Bros
What is meant by the thing escaping causes damage?
There must be some sort of property damage
What is meant by reasonably foreseeable damage?
This is the same as causation in negligence. There must be reasonably foreseeable damage. Both Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather and Transco v Stockport are authorities on this point
What are the 6 defences of R v F?
Act of a stranger: Perry v Kendricks
Act of god: Transco v Stockport
Statutory authority: Green v Chelsea Waterworks Company
Consent: Peters v Prince of Wales theatre
Common benefit: Dunne v North Western Gas Board
Fault of the claimant: Ponting v Noakes
