Rylands v Fletcher - ESCAPE OF DANGEROUS THINGS.

What is HELD in Ryland's v Fletcher

HELD: D will be liable if “on their land, they accumulate a dangerous thing in course of a non-natural use of that land, and the thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage.”

“Created the five essential elements to claim damages for the ESCAPE of DANGEROUS THINGS.”

What are the two requirements for the claimant to claim.

1. The claimant must have a legal interest in the land affected by the escape - (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

2. The five elements in Rylands v Fletcher must be met.

What are the five requirements in Rylands v Fletcher to claim for the ESCAPE of DANGEROUS THINGS.

1. Accumulation

2. Dangerous Things

3. Non-natural use of land

4. Escape

5. Reasonably foreseeable damage

What is meant by ACCUMULATION?

D brings onto their (owner..) land a substance (typically in large quantities) that escapes.

What was HELD in Giles v Walker?

HELD: The D wasn't liable as he had not brought the thistles (seeds-specifically) onto his (C's) land.

What was HELD in Leakey v National Trust

HELD: D liable. Although the Mound occurred naturally, D was AWARE of it escaping and did nothing to prevent it.

What is meant by DANGEROUS?

A substance that is dangerous - i.e if the substance escapes what would it do to C's land - AKA as a mischief.

What was held by the HL in Transco v Stockport MBC.

The accumulated substance should be something that poses an ‘exceptional risk’ IF it escapes.

Supplying water was neither ‘unnatural’ (application point) nor ‘specifically dangerous endeavour’ (application point)

What was HELD in Rickards v Lothian

HELD : Gives guidance on what would be considered to be a NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND.

1. It is used in a special way which then brings increased danger to others

2. It's used in a way that DOESN'T have a general BENEFIT for the COMMUNITY.

In Rickards v Lothian why did the claim fail.

One requirement for Dangerous is ‘extraordinary and unusual’. - Transco v Stockport MBC.

In Rickards D was supplying water to a block of flats which was seen as an ordinary use.

What was HELD in Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

HELD: The bulk storage of chemicals, to be used in an industrial process, was a classic example of a non-natural use of land.

What is the definition of ESCAPE.

The dangerous thing must escapes from D's land to C's land i.e from a land D controls to a land D doesn't.

What was HELD in Read v Lyon’s and what did Viscount Simon (Judge) say

HELD: The court found there was no liability (FOR ESCAPE OF A DANGEROUS THING) This was because there was no escape of the relevant kind.

Viscount Simon: “There needs to be an escape from a place where D has occupation or control over land to a place that is outside his occupation or control.”

A note from me - That wasn't the case here.

What was HELD in Stannard v Gore.

HELD: The accumulating substance (tyre) did not escape it was the fire that did. In addition, the activity of fitting tyres wasn't seen as unusual.

What was stated by LJ Ward in the Wyvern case and what were the three things that had to be satisfied to overule Stannard v Gore.

Damage caused by fire to adjoining land can fall within Rylands v Fletcher but this was likely to be very rare.

1. The ‘accumulated’ item itself must escape, not the fire which was started or increased by accumulated item

2. Although a fire is typically dangerous, situations where fire is brought onto land is likely to be limited to cases where the fire has been started deliberately or negligently by the Occupier.

3. Starting a fire may be an ordinary use of land

This means that it would be difficult for claimant's to succeed without negligence.

What is HELD in Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather.

HELD: The type of ‘damage’ must be a ‘reasonably foreseeable’ consequence of the escape of the thing likely to cause mischief.

Name all the defences for Rylands v Fletcher and in which situations are they used.

1. Volenti non fit insurance - C has consented to the thing that has been accumulated by D.

2. Common benefit - The source of the danger is used for both C & D's benefit.

3. Act of a stranger -The escape is caused by a stranger that D has no control over.

4. Act of God - A natural unforseen event that can't be forseen or guarded against and wasn't preventable.

5. Statutory Authority - The escape happens during an activity which has been authorised by an Act of Parliment

6. Fault of C - The claimant is Fully at fault for the escape.

7. Contributory Negligence - The claimant is partially at fault for the escape, liability may not be fully removed.

What was HELD in Perry v Kendricks Transport.

HELD: D wasn't liable as the act was caused by the deliberate act of a third party.

What was HELD in Nichols v Marsland

HELD: D was held as not liable as the act was caused by extreme weather conditions

What was HELD in Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Company

HELD: D wasn't liable as bursts were an inevitable consequence of the statutory duty so there could be no liability without negligence.

What was HELD in both Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre & Dunne v l North Western Gas Board.

HELD: No liability as the water (P v P.of.W)/ gas in (D v N.W.G.B) was to D & C's benefit.

HOW do you APPLY Rylands v Fletcher

1.State that C may be able to claim the Escape of Dangerous Thing -Say what has escaped and what's been damaged as a result

2.Define Rylands v Fletcher i.e. Use the HELD's.

State - Intrest in the Land (How does C have the right to claim what suggests that they are an owner, leaseholder or tenant the property the substance has escaped into.) -IF there are more than

State - Accumulation What large substance in the scenario has been stored in large quantities by D.

State Dangerous -What could happen to C's LAND typically if the substance escaped think of 2-3 things including what happened.

State non-natural - Why is the substance that was brought not supposed to be there.

State Escape - When the substance moved from D's land to C's LAND.

State DAMAGE - Why was it Reasonably Foreseeable that the substance would CAUSE DAMAGE to C's LAND

I.e. Why the damage was likely to happen.

Conclude - Compensatory damages state what was damaged.

Mention Defences if there are any.