Rickards v Lothian - Case summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Case summary...

Description

RICKARDS v LOTHIAN [1913] – Lord Moulton Material Facts  Rickards sink was intentionally blocked by an unknown third party  The sink overflowed and water escaped to the lower floors  The water caused damage to the plaintiff's stock Ratio Non-natural use:  In order to be liable under Rylands v Fletcher, the use of land must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and not the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community. Malicious third person:  A defendant will not be liable under Rylands v Fletcher if the escape of something from the defendant’s land is due to the malicious actions of a third person What is the issue?  Can the defendant be held liable under Rylands v Fletcher for the damage caused to his neighbour’s property by the overflow of water from a basin when it was caused by the malicious act of a third party? REASONING: ACT OF A THIRD PARTY Nichols v Marsland  Unanticipated downpour of rain caused artificial lakes to be flooded and damage adjoining land  Defendant was held not liable under R v F as the cause of the flood was an act of God  Exception to strict liability: Because the defendant did nothing inherently wrongful by constructing the ponds, will allow exceptions to liability. If wrongful, may not allow exceptions [398]  The act of keeping a reservoir is not in itself unlawful. It is the occurrence of vis major, of the water caused by the flood, which caused the disaster. [398]  “it was enough to establish Act of God in this situation which is similar here so…”  Because we don't have more guidance from the cases, this might be something that the parties would have to make arguments about. Box v Jubb – Kelly CB (p 400)  The defendant had a reservoir that sat below another reservoir. The owner of this other reservoir emptied it through a drain connected to the defendant’s reservoir, causing the defendants to overflow and damage the claimant’s land.  The claimant argued that there was a non-natural use of the land  Held: The defendant was not liable for the damage as it was caused by the act of a third party over which the defendant had no control.  Therefore, “the defendant is not liable on the principle of Fletcher v Rylands for damage caused by the wrongful act of third persons” (Moulton LJ @400) REASONING: NON-NATURAL USE  “It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community”. [401]  Supply of water in a town house: In Rickards v Lothian it was also held that plumbing is a necessary feature of town-life, and is thus a natural use of property. [402] Does the occurrence of an accident constitute a defence to a Rylands v Fletcher action?

 



When a third party accidentally causes the escape, this comes under the malicious act of a third party. The ratio from Rickards will not be satisfied (accident - not malicious), but the reasoning in Rickards (Box v Jubb) suggests that an accident may suffice if the third party is sufficiently outside of the defendant's control. Accidents per se do not excuse liability, but the question is whether a defence will apply if a third party accidentally (rather than maliciously) causes the escape....