Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 127 views

    Tort Law - Ryland V Fletcher Lecture Notes

    Uploaded by

    Ancellina Chin
    The rule in Rylands v Fletcher holds that a landowner is liable for damages caused to neighboring land by an escape from their land of something that is likely to do mischief if it escapes. This rule was established in the 1865 case Rylands v Fletcher, where a reservoir constructed on a landowner's property flooded a neighboring mine through old, undiscovered mining shafts. The landowner was found liable despite not being negligent. To establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher, it must be shown that the landowner brought something dangerous onto their land, there was an escape, the activity was a non-natural use of the land, and the damage was foreseeable. Defenses include default by the plaintiff, acts of strangers or

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tort Law - Ryland V Fletcher Lecture Notes

    Uploaded by

    Ancellina Chin
    127 views3 pages
    The rule in Rylands v Fletcher holds that a landowner is liable for damages caused to neighboring land by an escape from their land of something that is likely to do mischief if it escapes. This rule was established in the 1865 case Rylands v Fletcher, where a reservoir constructed on a landowner's property flooded a neighboring mine through old, undiscovered mining shafts. The landowner was found liable despite not being negligent. To establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher, it must be shown that the landowner brought something dangerous onto their land, there was an escape, the activity was a non-natural use of the land, and the damage was foreseeable. Defenses include default by the plaintiff, acts of strangers or

    Original Title

    Tort Law - Ryland v Fletcher lecture notes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The rule in Rylands v Fletcher holds that a landowner is liable for damages caused to neighboring land by an escape from their land of something that is likely to do mischief if it escapes. This rule was established in the 1865 case Rylands v Fletcher, where a reservoir constructed on a landowner's property flooded a neighboring mine through old, undiscovered mining shafts. The landowner was found liable despite not being negligent. To establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher, it must be shown that the landowner brought something dangerous onto their land, there was an escape, the activity was a non-natural use of the land, and the damage was foreseeable. Defenses include default by the plaintiff, acts of strangers or

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    127 views3 pages

    Tort Law - Ryland V Fletcher Lecture Notes

    Uploaded by

    Ancellina Chin
    The rule in Rylands v Fletcher holds that a landowner is liable for damages caused to neighboring land by an escape from their land of something that is likely to do mischief if it escapes. This rule was established in the 1865 case Rylands v Fletcher, where a reservoir constructed on a landowner's property flooded a neighboring mine through old, undiscovered mining shafts. The landowner was found liable despite not being negligent. To establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher, it must be shown that the landowner brought something dangerous onto their land, there was an escape, the activity was a non-natural use of the land, and the damage was foreseeable. Defenses include default by the plaintiff, acts of strangers or

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things brought onto one's land. There are four requirements for liability: the thing must be brought onto land, likely to cause mischief if escaped, escape, and constitute a non-natural use of land.

    There are four requirements for liability under Rylands v Fletcher: 1) the defendant brings something onto their land, 2) the thing is likely to cause mischief if escaped, 3) the thing escapes, and 4) the use of the land constitutes a non-natural or non-ordinary use.

    There are six potential defences in a Rylands v Fletcher claim: 1) default of the claimant, 2) unforeseeable act of a stranger, 3) act of God, 4) statutory authority, 5) consent, and 6) foreseeability of the type of damage.

    TOPIC 17 THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

    Contents

    1 Introduction
    2 Rylands v Fletcher
    3 Liability under Rylands v Fletcher
    4 Who can sue?
    5 Who can be sued?
    6 Defences
    7 Remedies
    8 Human Rights Act 1998

    1. Introduction
    The rule in Rylands v Fletcher protects an occupier of land against interference due to an isolated
    escape from neighbouring land.

    2. Rylands v Fletcher [1865]


    The facts
    D was a mill owner who employed independent contractors (ICs) to build a reservoir on his land to
    provide water for his mill. During the construction of the reservoir, the ICs discovered some old
    mining shafts and passages on D’s land, which appeared to be blocked. When the reservoir was filled,
    water burst through the old mining shafts. These shafts connected with P’s mine. As a result, P’s mine
    flooded and he sought compensation.

    It was clear the ICs had been negligent but P sued D, who had not been shown to be negligent. The
    courts had always rejected claims in private nuisance for isolated escapes so this was a problem for P
    in his suit against D.

    The rule
    Although the case reached the House of Lords, the classic statement of legal principle was given by
    Blackburn J in the Court of Exchequer Chamber:

    “We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his
    lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his
    own peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the
    natural consequence of its escape”.

    This statement was approved of by the House, with Lord Cairns adding the term “non-natural user” in
    explaining the rule.

    This decision caused controversy. Blackburn J reached his conclusion through reasoning by analogy
    to torts such as cattle trespass and nuisance. He clearly did not believe he was laying down a new
    principle of law.

    It has often been explained as a tort that imposes liability of person who conduct ultra-hazardous
    activities on their land. The US imposes strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities based on
    the case of Rylands v Fletcher: see the Restatement (Third) of Torts (2001). This idea of imposing
    strict liability was rejected by the Law Commission in its 1970 report, Civil Liability for Dangerous
    Things and Activities.

    1
    The House of Lords in Read v Lyons [1947] rejected strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities.
    And in Cambridge Water [1994], Lord Goff took the view that strict liability for operations of high
    risk would be more appropriately imposed by statute than the courts.

    In Australia, the rule has been absorbed into the law of negligence: Burnie Port Authority v General
    Jones [1994]. In a 5:2 decision the High Court decided that the occupier of land was liable for fire
    damage caused by negligence of ICs under the rules of negligence due to the existence of a non-
    delegable duty of care. This approach has not gained support in the UK.

    For Lord Goff the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is an extension of private nuisance rather than an aspect
    of negligence: see His Lordship’s decision in Cambridge Water.

    In 2013, the House of Lords in Transco Plc v Stockport MBC [2003] confirmed that the rule is a sub-
    species of private nuisance. The House:
    - Rejected the suggestion that R v F should be subsumed into the law of negligence as in
    Australia and Scotland
    - Rejected the suggestion that the rule should be applied more generously. They favoured a
    restrictive application of the rule to things brought onto land that pose an exceptionally high
    risk if they escape.
    - Clarified that only those with rights to land could sue in R v F.

    3. Liability under Rylands v Fletcher


    There are four requirements to be satisfied for C to successfully sue in R v F.

    3.1D brings onto land something for his own purposes which is likely to do mischief
    This requires a voluntary act of D in bringing something onto his land. What is likely to do mischief?
    Water was in this category in R v F itself. Other cases have found that electricity, oil, vibrations, and
    noxious fumes may be things likely to do mischief.

    In Transco, Lord Bingham commented that the “mischief” requirement should not be easily satisfied.
    It must be something that gives rise to “an exceptionally high risk of danger” if there is an escape, no
    matter how unlikely that escape may have been thought to be.

    3.2Escape
    Proof of escape of the dangerous thing is essential. In Read v Lyons an inspector of munitions was
    injured by the explosion of a shell while inspecting D’s munitions factory. the House of Lords
    reviewed the law and found that there had been no escape. An escape involved the object leaving the
    premises over which D had control.
    Can an intentional release be an “escape”? Taylor J in Rigby v Chief Constable of
    Northamptonshire [1985] it was held that trespass is the correct tort for the intentional and direct
    infliction of harm. However, this was questioned in Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton
    Fireworks Ltd [1996] where the intentional release was deliberately aimed in the direction of C or
    with the intention on impinging on his property. Taylor J’s decision in Rigby is more consistent with
    the traditional understanding of the separation between trespass and nuisance. Lord Goff has returned
    to this traditional view in Cambridge Water.

    3.3Non-natural User
    Blackburn J stated that the rule of law applied when D brought something onto land that was not
    originally there. Lord Cairn in the House of Lords interpreted this as “non-natural user” of land. Over
    time the “non-natural user” requirement has been interpreted as “non-ordinary user”.

    Lord Moulton in Rickards v Lothian [1913] stated the position as: “it is not every use to which land
    is put that brings into play the principle. It must be some special use bringing with it increased

    2
    danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the
    general benefit of the community.”

    The term “non-natural user” must now be reconsidered in the light of Goff J’s comments in
    Cambridge Water and the House of Lords ruling in Transco.

    3.4 Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type


    This requirement of liability was added by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern
    Counties Leather plc [1994].

    4. Who can sue?

    5. Who can be sued?

    6. Defences
    The first three defences derive from Blackburn J’s judgment in Rylands itself.
    6.1C’s default

    6.2Unforeseeable act of a stranger

    6.3Act of God

    6.4Statutory Authority

    6.5Consent

    7. Remedies

    7.1Injunction

    7.2Abatement

    7.3Damages

    8. Human Rights Act 1998

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy