Tort of Nuisance: Rylands v Fletcher

What is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher

D is liable if, on his land, they accumulate a dangerous thing in the course of a non natural use of that land, and that things escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage (Rylands v Fletcher)

What case confirms that this rule is a type of nuisance/strict liability

Transco pls v Stockport MBC

State the six elements which establish liability in Rylands v Fletcher

1) Claimant's legal position

2) Accumulation

3) A dangerous thing

4) Non-natural use of land

5) Escape

6) Reasonably foreseeable damage

Define claimant's legal position and include relevant case

Following Transco C requires a legal interest in the land affected by the escape (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

Define accumulation and include relevant case

When D voluntarily brings an accumulation of the thing that's escaped. This only covers artificial accumulation (Giles v Walker), (Stannard v Gore)

Define a dangerous thing and include relevant case

Something that is likely to cause mischief when it escape (Hale v Jennings Bros). Later refined by Transco to suggest the substance should pose an 'exceptional risk'.

Define non-natural use and include relevant case

Something which is 'not commonplace' to be there (Rickards v Lothian). Later refined by Transco to use the terms 'extraordinary or unusual'

Define escape and include relevant case

C must show the substance escaped from land they do own to land they don't have control over (Reads v Lyons & Co)

Define reasonably foreseeable damage and include relevant case

Only damage that is reasonably foreseeable can be recovered (Cambridge water v Eastern Counties Leather)

State the four defences available in Rylands v Fletcher and include cases

1) Act of a stranger- D isn't liable if the escape is cause by someone else (Perry v Kendricks Transport)

2) Act of God- D isn't liable for an escape which was caused by a natural event (Nichols v Marsland)

3) Statutory authority- If the accumulation was authorised by an act of parliament and it escapes then D is not liable (Green v Chelsea Waterworks Company)

4) Further defences- D isnt't liable if: the escape relates to something for the common benefit of C and D OR the escape is due to C's fault (Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co)

C's damages are reduced if: The escape was partly due to their fault or the damage is made worse due to the extra-sensitive use of their own land