Rylands v Fletcher

Definition

A land based tort of strict liability, meaning the defendant is liable regardless the fault.

5 principles established by Rylands v fletcher

1. Brings something to the land

2. Likely to do mischief

3. Non-natural use of land

4. Escapes

5. Causes damage

Rylands v flecher

Established the land tort and the 5 principles

Parties to the action

The C must have an interest in the land, the D must have some control over the land in order to be sued

Charging cross electric supply co v Hydraulic power co

Charging cross electric supply co v Hydraulic power co

The C must have an interest in the land, the D must have some control over the land in order to be sued

Brings something to the land

The D brings something onto the land that is not naturally occurring there

Pontadawe RDC v Moore Gwyn

Gils v Walker

Pontadawe RDC v Moore Gwyn

Rocks were natural so there was no liability

Giles v Walker

If something naturally accumulates on the land the D may be liable

Likely to cause damage

The thing does not need to be dangerous, but it must be likely to cause damage. This is a test of foreseeability not the escape.

Hale v jennings

Hale v jennings

The thing does not need to be dangerous, but it must be likely to cause damage. This is a test of foreseeability not the escape.

Non-natural use of land

The meaning of non-natural has been explored in case law and has a narrow interpretation. The concept of non-natural use of land was explained as special use bringing with it increased danger to others. This was confirmed in Read v Lyons & co Ltd, all circumstances should be considered, meaning that it is judged on a case to case basis.

Richards v Lothian

The meaning of non-natural has been explored in case law and has a narrow interpretation.

Read v J Lyons & co Ltd

The concept of non-natural use of land was explained as special use bringing with it increased danger to others.

Escapes and causes damage

The thing must escape from the Ds land to the Cs land and cause damage

Hale v Jennings

Recoverable damage

The tower is not actionable, which means that any C must show damage in order to succeed. So there can be no liability for the mere interference with the enjoyment of land.

Personal injury

Rylands is not available for personal injury. This can confirmed in the case of Transco

Transco

Rylands is not available for personal injury

Remoteness of damage

The damage must be foreseeable. The D must have known or ought reasonably to have foreseen that damage of the relèvent type might be a consequence of the escape likely to cause damage.

Wagon mound

Wagon mound

The damage must be foreseeable. The D must have known or ought reasonably to have foreseen that damage of the relèvent type might be a consequence of the escape likely to cause damage.

Damage by fire

An occupier of land is no liable for the accidental spread of fire. Section 86 fire prevention (metropolis) act 1774. However, the act does not apply to a fire resulting from negligence or a non-natural use. Musgrave v Pandelis.

Section 86 fire prevention (metropolis) act 1774

An occupier of land is no liable for the accidental spread of fire.

Musgrave v Pandelis.

However, the act does not apply to a fire resulting from negligence or a non-natural use.

Defences

• Volenti

• Act of a stranger

• Act of god

• Statutory authority

• Wrongful act of a third party

• Contributory negligence

Volenti

If the C expressly or impliedly consents to the presence of the thing on the D’s property, then the D is not liable for damage caused by the escape unless they have been negligent. Consent is a commonly available defence in the case of multiple occupation of buildings, particularly tall buildings. The C will be said to consent when the thing accumulated is for the common benefit of the occupants. Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (Birmingham) Ltd (1943) It is however no defence to say that the accumulation is for the general benefit of the community Cordon v Newport City Council (2008)

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (Birmingham) Ltd (1943)

The C will be said to consent when the thing accumulated is for the common benefit of the occupants.

Cordon v Newport City Council (2008)

It is however no defence to say that the accumulation is for the general benefit of the community

Act of a stranger

Where the escape is caused by the act of a stranger over whom the D has no control, this will be a defence and the defendant may not be liable. Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956) The important aspect of absolving liability using an Act of Stranger is therefore that:

1. The escape was caused by an act of a stranger which D has no control over.

2. That D had done what was reasonable in the circumstances to guard against the thing escaping.

If however, the act which caused the escape was committed by a person over whom the D may exercise some control the D may still be liable, as seen in Ribee v Norrie (2000)

Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956)

Where the escape is caused by the act of a stranger over whom the D has no control, this will be a defence and the defendant may not be liable.

Ribee v Norrie (2000)

If however, the act which caused the escape was committed by a person over whom the D may exercise some control the D may still be liable.

Act of God

An Act of God can break the chain of causation and is used where D has no control over some force of nature. ‘It is available when the escape is caused by natural forces, in circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility’ Nicholls v Marsland

Nicholls v Marsland

An Act of God can break the chain of causation and is used where D has no control over some force of nature. ‘It is available when the escape is caused by natural forces, in circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility’

Statutory Authority

A statue on construction may provide a defence if the escape is a direct result of carrying out the duty continued in the statute

Green v Chelsea water works co

Green v Chelsea water works co

statue on construction may provide a defence if the escape is a direct result of carrying out the duty continued in the statute

Contributory negligence

If the C was partly to blame for the damage to their property then the provisions of the Law reform (contributory negligence) Act 1945 will apply and damages may be reduced according to the Cs fault.

Law reform (Contributory Negligence) act 1945

Provides for appointment of loss where the fault of both C and D have contributed to the damage

Wrongful act of the third party

May be successful as a defence shown in Rickards v Lothian