READ v Lyons - Case summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Case summary...

Description

READ v LYONS [1946] – Viscount Simon/Lord Porter Material facts  Defendant runs a factory that manufactures high-explosive shells for the government, during WW1  The appellant, Norah Read, was required to work at the factory as an inspector for the Ministry  An explosion occurred in the factory which injured Read (no escape)  Read sued Lyons for damages for personal injury  No negligence is proved against Lyons Issue:  Is a person, who for their own purposes brings onto his land and manufactures there explosives likely to do mischief if they escape, answerable for all the damage (including personal injury) which is the natural consequence of its escape even if that harm occurs on his premises Ratio:  A person, who for their own purposes brings onto his land and collects and keeps there, for a non natural use, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, is answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape, but only if the harm occurs outside his land or premises. Judgment (Viscount Simon) How does Viscount Simon define "escape"?  “Means escape from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control” [168]  Clearly, the thing must move from the defendant's land to cause damage elsewhere, and if this is not so, there will be no liability. What examples does the Judge give of previous cases that help determine that escape is necessary?  In Howard v Furness Houlder Argentine Lines, Ld., an injury was caused by an escape of steam on board a ship where the plaintiff worked. It was held that Rylands and Fletcher could not be applied to a situation where injuries were caused on the premises of the defendant. (no escape) Manufacture of explosives in wartime is a natural use of the land  "the doctrine of R v F does not apply where… the manufacture of explosives is carried on under the directions of the Ministry of Munitions…for the general benefit of the community at a time of grave national danger." Judgment Lord Porter What does Lord Porter say are the key elements to Rylands v Fletcher liability?  “To make the rule applicable it is at least necessary that for a person whom it is sought to hold liable to have brought on to his premises or at any rate to some place over which he has a measure of control, something which is dangerous in the sense that, if it escapes, it will do damage. Possibly a further requisite is that to bring the thing to the position in which it is found is to make a non-natural use of that place” [176] Does Lord Porter help to determine when there is a dangerous thing, or 'non-natural' use of land?  “Amongst dangerous objects have been held to include gas, explosive substances, electricity, oil, fumes, rusty wire, poisonous vegetation, vibrations, a flag-pole and even dwellers in caravans.”  Lord porter referred to cases about gas and electricity escaping from pipes. Escape is not just from land, but from things under the person’s control.



“In every case, there was escape from the container in which the defendants had a right to carry the dangerous substance…and an escape into property over which they had no control.” [177] Non-natural use  “…and in deciding this question I think that all the circumstances of the time and place and practice of mankind must be taken into consideration so that what might be regarded dangerous or non-natural may vary according to those circumstances” What about personal injury in New Zealand?  Legislation establishes ACC compensation for any injury no matter what the case...