Rylands v Fletcher - Something likely to cause mischief if it escapes-FS

Question 1

What is the third requirement under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 1

The thing brought onto the land must be likely to cause mischief (i.e. damage) if it escapes.

Question 2

Does the object need to be dangerous in itself to meet this requirement?

Answer 2

No. It may not be inherently dangerous but may still qualify if it becomes dangerous upon escape, such as water or electricity.

Question 3

Why does foreseeability of harm upon escape matter in Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 3

Because liability arises when the object is of a kind that is reasonably likely to cause damage if it escapes, regardless of how it behaves while contained.

Question 4

Give examples of things that are not inherently dangerous but are still likely to cause mischief if they escape.

Answer 4

Water, electricity, and sewage—they are not dangerous in storage but can cause serious harm once escaped.

Question 5

What kinds of animate or mobile objects have been considered likely to cause mischief?

Answer 5

Cattle have been explicitly identified in precedent as likely to cause mischief upon escape due to the physical damage they typically inflict.

Question 6

Can animals fall within the scope of Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer 6

Yes, if they are brought onto the land and are likely to cause property damage if they escape, such as grazing cattle or similar animals.

Question 7

How do non-living substances like gases or fumes qualify under this element?

Answer 7

If they are capable of causing harm upon escape, such as poisonous fumes, they satisfy the mischief element.

Question 8

Why is it important that the item is brought onto the land?

Answer 8

Liability only arises when the defendant introduced the potentially harmful item; naturally occurring substances do not meet this criterion.

Question 9

Can human error or negligence be relevant in applying this element?

Answer 9

No. Under Rylands v Fletcher, liability is strict—fault or negligence is not required, so long as the item qualifies and causes escape-based damage

Question 10

Why would cattle entering neighbouring land and causing damage fall under this rule

Answer 10

Because cattle are recognised as items likely to cause damage if they escape, and if damage occurs, this satisfies the third requirement of the tort.