Rylands v Fletcher

Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 1

• D made a reservoir as a water supply for his mill. Mine-shafts were not blocked off causing flooding to a mine.
• A claim could be made if material was likely to be brought onto land and stored, it was likely to cause mischief if it escapes, which amounted to a non-natural use of the land, and which escaped.

Question 2

Rickards v Lothian

Answer 2

• An unknown person turned on water taps and blocked plugholes causing damage to the flat below.
• There has to be a non-natural use of the land - not present in this case as domestic pipes were a natural use of land.

Question 3

Read v Lyons

Answer 3

• An explosion took place in a munitions factory, causing injury.
• The material has to escape from one property onto adjoining property - no liability here as there was no escape.

Question 4

Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather

Answer 4

• Stored chemicals seeped through the concrete floor of a factory into the soil below, polluting an area where water was extracted.
• Damage has to be reasonably foreseeable and not too remote from the escape.