Studied by 14 people
Rylands v Fletcher
When D has accumulated something dangerous on this land, which escapes and causes damage on neighbouring land.
Read v Lyons (Can C sue D?)
Anyone with control of the land where the problem started may be sued under Rylands.
Transco v Stockport MBC (Can C sue D?)
C needs to have proprietary rights in the land to be affected.
Ellison v Ministry of Defence
Where the thing causing damage naturally accumulates on the land, it cannot be said that D has ‘brought’ it onto his land.
Read v Lyons (Escape)
The thing goes into a place where D does not have occupation or control.
Stannard v Gore
Where fire escapes and causes damage, D must have brought that fire onto his land, not just objects that start or worsen the fire.
Transco v Stockport MBC (Danger)
One could foresee a very high risk of damage if the thing escapes but not how foreseeable escape is.
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather
The type of damage caused must be foreseen.
Transco v Stockport MBC (Non-natural)
An extraordinary and unusual use of land.
Rickards v Lothian
When the escape is caused by someone D does not have control over this is an act of stranger.
Nichols v Marsland
When the escape is caused by some natural force which no human could foresee or prevent is an act of god.
Note 
Flashcard (64)