Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards
What is Rylands v Fletcher?
A distinct claim in its own right?
Benning v Wong: “the whole point of Rylands v Fletcher is that exercise of care is irrelevant”
Rylands contains no requirement of intention, recklessness or negligence.
Outcome-based strict liability
What happened in Rylands v Fletcher?
Water escapes reservoir that’s being built for D by contractors.
C’s nearby mine is flooded.
Trespass not applicable because lacking directness
Nuisance not applicable because at the time, the interference had to be continuous or recurring.
Rylands v Fletcher - a new cause of action?
Uses analogy that the claim was relatively similar to other existing claims that had strict liability.
Fleming: R v F created a new law by extending strict liability to the general category of ALL inherently dangerous substances.
Rylands judgement
1) anything likely to cause risk
2) must contain said substance
3) if it escapes, strict liability for ALL damages
4) limited to natural and probable consequences
Debates as to whether open to interpretation
Leaves open to possible defences
Lord Cairns in HoL approves, and states that it is only applicable to non-natural use of the land
Rylands decision procedure
Accumulation Non-natural use (Cairns) Escape Damage Remoteness (now Wagon Mound) Defences
Rylands and risk
Risk refers to the probability of damage associated with a hazard
Rylands - accumulation
Must be voluntary
Rylands CAN apply where D is instrumental in causing things naturally on the land to escape (Miles v Forest Rock Granite)
GENERALLY no liability under Rylands for escape of things naturally on the land…
although poss GM crops
Rylands - non-natural use
Cairns has distinction between ‘natural useR’ and ‘non-natural use’
Newark: Cairns did NOT introduce an additional requirement for non-natural use.
Rickards v Lothian
Non-natural use must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others.
Can be distinguished from
- ordinary use of the land
- such use as is proper for the general benefit of the community…
So, won’t be applicable for Rylands if it benefits the community?
- THIS CLAIM HAS BEEN REJECTED BY CAMBRIDGE WATERS… need to take private rights more seriously regardless of public interest
Read v Lyons
Whether a use is natural or non-natural is a ‘question of fact’ for the judge
= STRONG DISCRETION
What is relevant is whether the particular object can be DANGEROUS, taking into account the time and place… context is key.
Examples of natural use (Rylands not applicable)
domestic water supplies household fires electric wiring in houses and shops ordinary working of mines ordinary keeping of trees and shrubs (unless poisonous (Crowhurst v Amersham)
Non-natural use and abnormal risks
Mason v Levy Auto Parts (combustable material and fire)
Combustable materials can be applicable for Rylands with consideration made to:
1) quantity
2) storage
3) character of neighbourhood (one-way risk)
Cambridge Water
The DEFENDANT does not need a proprietary interest…
They just need to be found to have had control of the material that escaped (eg Rigby case with gas canisters)
On remoteness, foreseeability of damage should be regarded as a prerequisite of liability. This was affirmed in Transco
What IS applicable to Rylands
Fire, sparks from a train setting fire to haystack (Jones)
Gas likely to pollute water supplies (Batchellor)
Explosions, rocks blasted from quarrying (Miles v Forest Rock Granite)
Electricity (National Telephone co v Baker)
Oil (Smith v Great Western Railway)
Noxious fumes (West v Bristol Tramways)
Theme of DANGEROUSNESS
Defences for Rylands
Act of God (Nichols v Marsland, flooding by rain)
Unforeseeable act of a third party (Rickards v Lothian)
Consent (AG v Cory Brothers)
Necessity or Statutory Authority (Rigby)
