Rylands v Fletcher - private nuisance

What happened in R v F

Reservoir bust & flooded a neighbouring mine

What was the decision made in R v F & Lord

Blackburn

‘The person who for his own purposes brings on his land & collects & keeps anything likely to cause mischief must keep it in their peril or they are accountable for any damage’

What are the rules that came from R v F

Something must have been collected & kept

Nonnatural use

Likely to do mischief if it escapes

Must have escaped & caused damage

Case for collected & kept

Miles v Forest Granite

Blasted rocks that escaped & injured claimant

Liable

Case for nonnatural use

Rickards v Lothian

Act of a third party

Not liable

Case for likely to do mischief if it escapes

Transco Plc v Stockport metropolitan Borough Council

Water pipe failed flooding an embankment

Not liable

Development of the rules

Does the thing collected & kept have to escape

What’s the meaning of nonnatural

To what extent must the thing be likely to cause mischief

Is foreseeability of harm needed - Cambridge water

What are the 5 defences for R v F

Consent

Vis major

Act of a stranger

Statutory authority

Contributory negligence

Case example for consent

Peters v Prince of Wales theatre

Sprinkler system caused flood damage due to icy weather - consented & benefit from sprinklers

Not liable

Case example for vis major

Nichols v Marsland

Ornamental pools overflowed due to heavy & unpredicted rainfall

Not liable

Case example for act of a stranger

Perry v Kendrick’s transport

2 boys threw a lit match into the fuel tank of an old coach causing an explosion leaving the claimant with severe burns

Not liable

Case example for statutory authority

Charing cross electric supply co v Hydronic power co

Statute granted permission to keep water main at high pressure but there was no obligation to do so

Not liable

Contributory negligence law

Law reform (contributory negligence) act 1945 section 1

Reduce damages for a claimant who partially contributed to their own injuries, rather than dismissing the claim entierly

What’s the problem with R v F being a strict liability tort (evaluation)

Claimant doesn’t have to prove D is at fault (easier than bringing a claim in negligence)

But the fact D is allowed to use various defences means it’s harder for C to claim & R vF action isn’t really a strict liability tort

Why is it hard to prove unnatural use (evaluation)

The defendant can simply defeat this claim by showing a natural use for the land

Case example for the rule of thing escaping causing problems (evaluation)

Read v Lyons - personal injury is not actionable as the thing didn’t escape

Case example for foreseeable damage (evaluation)

Cambridge water co v Eastern counties leather

What did the Australian high court do with R v F (evaluation)

Made it a part of negligence 1994

Statute created to replace R v F (evaluation) & who by

Reservoirs act 1975

Nuclear installations act 1965 7 69

Parlt

What did the house of lords say about R v F (evaluation)

Reviewed Transco - ‘natural’ use should now be interpreted as ‘ordinary’ - R v F will only apply if the use is extraordinary & unusual

They could’ve abolished but said it’s been in existence for 150 years & Parlt should get rid of it, not the courts