Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

Strict Liability - Ryland v Fletcher

Answer 1

• This is a form of Strict Liability.
  D is liable for the Isolated escape of Hazardous chemicals unto C’s land.

case facts:

• D owned mill and hired IC to build resoviour.
• went wrong - the pipe burst, Leaked and caused flood unto C’s property.
• D was held liable - Lj Cairns, he made a Non natural use of his land.

Question 2

Ground of Claim:
1. D brings something unto his property for his own use that is likely to cause mischief:

Giles v Walker
Rylands
National telephone
Rainham Chemicals
Mulholland
Hoare

Answer 2

Giles: this requires a voluntary act.

Examples of mischief:
Ryland: Water
National Telephone: Electricity 
Rainham: Explosives
Mullholland: Oil
Hoare: Vibration

Question 3

Ground of Claim:
2. If it escapes:

• Read
• Charing
• Stannard

Answer 3

there needs to be proof of actual damage once it escapes.

Read: the chemical that is likely to do mischief has to move from D’s premise outside his control or occupation.

Charing: Ds where companies that build pipe under public highway, it leaked.
- court held: the escape doesn’t have to be from D’s land.

Stannard: tyre catches and spreads to C’s property.
- CA: held D bought the Tyres unto his property not the fire, there is no escape for the purpose of this rule.

Question 4

Ground of Claim:
3. Non-Natural user

• Rickards
• Cambridge waters
• Transco

Answer 4

Rickards: special use that brings with it an increased danger to others. Goes beyond the ordinary.

Cambridge: storing large quantise of chemical on industrial premise is an example of non-natural use.

Transco: Stockport council put pipes across railway embankment to provide water supply for flats.

• it bust and caused gas leak.
• held: the use of land must be ‘Extraordinary and unusual’. - piping water is a natural use of the land - the claim fail.
• Lord Hoffman - having insurance for the damage makes it natural use.

Question 5

Ground of Claim:
4. Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type

• Cambridge Water
• Northumbrian

Answer 5

Cambridge: D used chemical to degrease leather - it spills through the floorboards all the time and contaminated C’s water supply.
- held: this was not foreseeable to a skilled person. claim failed.

North: the escape doesn’t have to be foreseeable only the damage: evidence of court shifting from strict liability

• D made appropriate checks before conducting work - but there was a disused pipe unknown to them, linked to sewer.
• held that this was not foreseeable, D did all he could to prevent and check for future damages.

Question 6

Who can sue and who can be sued?

Answer 6

only one with interest in the land - Cambridge

The Occupier of the land is liable.

Question 7

Defences: Claimant’s Default

• Ponting

Answer 7

Defence where escape if due to C’s actions/fault.

Ponting: C’s horse ate berry that was hanging over D’s property - there is no liability not D’s fault and there was no escape.

Question 8

Defences: Unforeseeable act of a stranger

• Rox
• Rickards
• North Western utilities

Answer 8

Rox - no liability where escape was due to fault of 3rd party.
- D’s reservoir flooded C property - but it was a third parties reservoir that cased the flood initially.

Rickards: 3rd party when into D’s property and blocked the sink which caused a flood - D was not liable.

North Western: the 3rd parties act must be unforeseeable for the defence to work.

Question 9

Defences - Act of God

Answer 9

Barely used now.
In past - D would not be liable fore damage caused by act of nature that’s unpreventable.

• Nichols: heavy rain caused D’s banks to burst and washed away R bridges - D was not held liable.

Question 10

Defence - Statutory Authority and consent

- Green

Answer 10

D had to duty to maintain water supplies.

can be expressly or implied.