Rylands v Fletcher - Summary Law PDF

Preview

Summary

Rylands v Fletcher....

Description

1 Definition: Under the tort of Ryland’s V. Fletcher, a person who permits a dangerous element onto their land if it escapes and damages a neighbour is accountable on a strict liability basis – it is not necessary to prove negligence on the part of the landowner from which has escaped the hazardous substance. In this case water had escaped from a reservoir flooding a neighbouring mine. Link to Nuisance: Ryland’s V. Fletcher is an extension of nuisance, because of the “one off” aspect of it as well as it originating from nuisance. Why is it difficult to make an R v F claim? This tort is difficult to make a claim in since the scope of it is too narrow, and there are many requirements to meet. The essential ingredients of the tort of Rylands v Fletcher are:     

a bringing onto the defendants land (Accumulation) of a thing likely to be dangerous if it escapes which amounts to a non-natural use of land and the thing does escape and causes damage lastly a remoteness of damage.

Who is able to claim? 

Those who meet the specified requirements of the tort as stated.

Accumulation: The defendant must bring the hazardous material on to his land and keep it there. If the thing is already on the land or is there naturally for example; the spreads of weeds, no liability will arise under Ryland’s v Fletcher Cases which illustrate this are… Giles v Walker   

Seeds from some thistles on the defendant’s land blew into neighbouring land owned by the claimant and damaged his crops. The defendant was not liable as he had not brought the thistles onto his land and therefore cannot be liability under Rylands v Fletcher for a thing which naturally accumulates on land.

Carstairs v Taylor      

The claimant stored rice in the ground floor of a warehouse which he leased from the defendant. A rat gnawed through a gutter box draining water from the roof of the warehouse. Following this, a heavy rainfall caused the roof to leak and damaged the claimant’s rice. It was held that the defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher. The claimant had not brought the water onto his land to accumulate it. The heavy rain and actions of the rat were classed as an act of God.

Also the thing accumulated must be for the defendant’s benefit or purpose illustrated in the cases… Dunne v North Western Gas Board  

  

Gas escaped from a gas main caused by a burst water main. The gas travelled along a sewer and was ignited causing a series of explosions resulting in injuries to five claimants. They each brought an action based on liability under Rylands v Fletcher. It was held the defendant was not liable. The Gas Board had not accumulated gas for their own purposes.

2 AO2: The word “purpose” here is unclear as something maybe there for a purpose but of no benefit. Pearson v North Western Gas Board  

The claimant was seriously injured, her husband killed and her home destroyed by an explosion of gas. Her claim failed under Rylands v Fletcher following Dunne v North West Gas Board.

A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes: The thing in question must be a source of foreseeable harm. Cases which illustrate this are… Gale v Jennings    

The defendant operated a chair-o-plane roundabout at a fairground. One of the chairs broke loose and hit the claimant. This was held to amount to an escape for the purposes of Rylands v Fletcher. The defendant was liable for the personal injury sustained.

Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St Johns   

A flag pole belonging to the defendant fell and hit the claimant. This was held to amount to an escape for the purposes of Rylands v Fletcher. The defendant was liable to pay damages for the personal injury sustained.

Non-natural use of land: Tends to be “creatively interpreted”. Illustrated in the case… British Celanese Ltd v AH Hunt 

The storage of metal foil on premises situated on an industrial estate was held to be a natural use.



The foil escaped and came into contact with a power cable resulting in a power cut.



The court said that there was no risk to storing the foil and the use of the land was beneficial to the community.



Therefore the defendants were held not liable under Rylands v Fletcher.



Because where the factory was situated could not be regarded as a non-natural use of land and the claim failed.

An open fire in a domestic fire grate does not constitute a non-natural use of land. Illustrated in the case… Sochaki v Sas  

  

He defendant lit an open fire in his room and then went out. Unfortunately a spark jumped from the fire and set the room alight. The fire spread to the rest of the house and the claimant brought an action against the defendant based on liability arising under Rylands v Fletcher. The defendant was not liable. Whilst the fire was likely to do mischief if it escaped, the use of an open fire in the claimant’s fireplace was not considered a non-natural use of land.

AO2: In this case fire escaped, and caused mischief/damage. It seems unfair to not impose liability in this case. Though you could argue it wasn’t a non-natural use of land.

3

Escape: There must be an escape from the defendant's land. An injury inflicted by the accumulation of a hazardous substance on the land itself will not invoke liability under Rylands v Fletcher. Cases which illustrate this are… Read v Lyons 

The claimant was a factory worker which made explosives.



During her employment an explosion occurred which killed a man and injured others including the claimant.



There was no evidence that negligence had caused the explosion.



The case was governed by the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and liability was therefore strict.



The Court of Appeal reversed this decision as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher required an escape of the hazardous matter.



The claimant appealed though The House of Lords dismissed the appeal.

Ponting v Noakes  

The claimant’s horse died after it had reached over the defendant’s fence and ate some leaves from a Yew tree. The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the defendant’s land and there had therefore been no escape.

The courts have not always strictly applied this requirement shown in the above cases Gale v Jennings and Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St Johns. Remoteness of Damage: (foreseeability) Liability in Rylands v Fletcher is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage (foreseeability). This point was established in the Cambridge Water case: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather



Spillages of solvents occurred over a long period of time which seeped through the floor. These solvents made their way to the well owned by the claimant supplying water to local residents. The water became contaminated at a level beyond safe. Cambridge Water brought actions based using the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.



Eastern Counties Leather were not liable as the damages weren’t foreseeable.

  

Defences: Volenti: (Consent) If the claimant receives a benefit from the thing accumulated, they may be deemed to have consented to the accumulation. Peter’s v Prince of Wales Theatre  The claimants stock was damaged by the claimant’s sprinkler system.  But the water supply was for the benefit of both parties.  Therefore the defendant was not liable. Act of God: A thing which occurred within no one’s control. Nicholls v Marsland

4  



The defendant made three ornamental lakes by damming a natural stream on his land Freak thunderstorms and torrential rain broke the banks of the lakes causing destruction of the bridges on the claimants land. There was no liability because the weather condition were so stream....