Rylands v Fletcher

Rylands v Fletcher

Rule (AO1)

A D is liable if, on his land, he accumulates a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of that land, and the thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage.

D must keep the thing “at his peril”

• Strict liability tort (Always mention)

• The D must be either the Accumulator or the Occupier of the land and the C will need to show that the issues detailed above have been caused by D.

Side note: If Rylands does not succeed theen nuisance may be alternative action.

Exam note - If there is physical damage (Direct interference) then likely Rylands but if no physical damage (indirect interference) then likely nuisance. Also if a one off event then RvF.

Rylands v Fletcher Requirements (4)

Elements (AO1)

1. Bringing onto the land

2. Was the thing likely (RF) to cause mischief if it escapes

3. Was there a non-natural / non-ordinary use of D’s land (extraordinary / unusual)

4. Did the thing escape from Property under D’s control to C’s property

Rylands v Fletcher

Rule (AO1)

A D is liable if, on his land, he accumulates a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of that land, and the thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage.

D must keep the thing “at his peril”

• Strict liability tort (Always mention)

• The D must be either the Accumulator or the Occupier of the land and the C will need to show that the issues detailed above have been caused by D.

Side note: If Rylands does not succeed theen nuisance may be alternative action.

Exam note - If there is physical damage (Direct interference) then likely Rylands but if no physical damage (indirect interference) then likely nuisance. Also if a one off event then RvF.

Rylands v Fletcher Requirements (4)

Elements (AO1)

1. Bringing onto the land

2. Was the thing likely (RF) to cause mischief if it escapes

3. Was there a non-natural / non-ordinary use of D’s land (extraordinary / unusual)

4. Did the thing escape from Property under D’s control to C’s property

C’s legal position

Rule (AO1)

C must have a legal interest in the land (same as nuisance)
i.e. owner or tenant. (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

1. Bringin Onto the land (Also referred to as ‘collecting and keeping’ or accumulating)

Definition (AO1)

There is a difference between things that grow or occur naturally on the land, and those that are artificially accumulated there by D.

i.e. rocks & thistles naturally occur and so would not amount to bringing onto the land

However, bringing and storing chemicals onto land would be an accumulation.

The fact that something naturally ocurring on the land escapes will not suffice of itself for liability.

Accumulation

Rule (AO1)

This includes artificial accumulation of material, such as the creation of a man-made reservoir, (whether or not the material itself is ariticial).

But not a natural accumulation such as a lake (unless caused by non-natural process such as rock blasting)

So if escaped substance is already naturally in place on the land then D will not be liable.

1. Bringin Onto the land (Also referred to as ‘collecting and keeping’ or accumulating)

Case (AO3)

(Giles v Walker)

D ploughed land which then became self-sown with thistles that spread to neigbouring land. Not liable.

(Leakey v National Trust)

D’s owned a hill.

C’s homes were at foot of hill which were damaged by the land slipping.

No human activity involved caused the fall.

2. Of a thing which is dangerous - “likely to cause mischief if it escapes”

Definition (AO1)

What is brought onto the land need not be dangerous itself. It is only dangerous IF it is likely to cause a mischief if it escapes.

Likely = Very foreseeable

Escape itself does not need to be likely - only that mischief will likely occur if thing does escape.

So covers:

• Items ordinarily found on land which become dangerous if it accumulates and escapes

  OR

• OOther things which are not naturally on the land but have also escaped

2. Of a thing which is likely to cause mischief (if it escapes)

Examples (AO2)

• Gas

• Fire

• Water

• Toxins from chemicals (Rat poisons, weed killer etc.)

• Animals

2. Of a thing which is likely to cause mischief (if it escapes)

Case (AO3)

(Read v Lyons)

Ammunition factory in war time that exploded.

3. Which amounts to a ‘non-natural’ use of the land

Definition (AO1)

Non-natural = Extraordinary & Unusual.

Not liable for man-made accumulation if it can be described as ordinary - “Must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of land.

The storage of items for domestic use is more likely to be seen as a natural use, despite them being potentially hazardous. This is different though, if stored for industrial use.

Consider Quantities of ‘thing’ & where it is stored

3. Which amounts to a ‘non-natural’ use of the land

Case (AO3)

(Transco)

Water pipe owned by D burst, leaking water into a railwa embankment which partiall collapsed, leaving C’s high pressure gas main exposed and unsupported.

C incurred considerable costs to prevent an explosion.

Held that D was not liable as not all criteria was successful.

4. Which escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property

Definition (AO1)

Escape - “The thing must move from land that D controls, to land they do not.”

Reasonably Foreseeable - “Only damage that is RF can be recovered”

The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite in the same way as it applies to claims based in negligence. (Wagon Mound)

The test is objective - foreseeable by the reasonable person.

4. Which escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property

Case (AO3)

(Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc)

D owned a tanning company. Spillages of small quantities of solvents occured over a long period of time which seeped through the concrete floor of the building into soil below.

Solvents made entered a borehole owned by C (water company) which was quite a distance.

Due to sudden change in law, the water was comtaminated to a level that was not considered safe and borehole had to be closed.

Held that D was not liable as damage was too remote. It was not RF that contamination levels changing & the spillages would result in the closing of the borehole.

Defences

(AO1)

Even though Rylands v Fletcher is Strict liability, D may raise defences agains the claim (implying that the tort is fault based)

• Statutory Authority

• An Act of God

• An Act of a Stranger

• Consent

• Common Benefit

• C’s own fault

Defences - Statutory Authority

Rule (AO1)

If activity is regulated by an act of parliamant then no liability - as long as D is not negligent.

Defences - Statutory Authority

Case (AO3)

(Green v Chelsea Waterworks)

D had a statutory duty to keep water running and was not negligent when pipe burst. So not liable

Defences - An Act of God

Rule (AO1)

A natural event so enormous that it cannot be foreseen or guarded against.

i.e. Extreme wheather conditions - storms / tremors / drought

Defences - An Act of God

Case (AO3)

(Nichols v Marsland)

Water escaped from D’s ornamental lake after worst rainstorm in living memory caused the embankment of the lake to collapse under the extra pressure.

D was not liable as the torrential rainfall could not reasonably have been anticipated

Defences - An Act of a Stranger

Rule (AO1)

D will not be liable if escape is caused by a deliberate and unforeseen act of a person over whom D has no control

Defences - An Act of a Stranger

Case (AO3)

(Perry v Kendricks transport)

D kept old coach which needed fixing on their land, next to some waste ground.

Two boys lit a match and threw it into the petrol tank, causing an explosion.

D was not liable.

Defences - Consent

Rule (AO1)

D consented to the accumulation

Defences - Common Benefit

Rule (AO1)

If accumulation benefits C and D

Defences - Common Benefit

Case (AO3)

(Dunne v North Western Gas Board)

Water main leaked, causing a sewer to collapse and a gas main to explode. Neither the corporation nor the gas board were negligent.

Held that gas board was not liable for escape of gas and explosion since board accumulated the gas for benefit of consumers rather than themselves.

Defences - C’s fault

Rule (AO1)

If C was solely at fault of escape then D will not be liable

Defences - C’s fault

Case (AO3)

(Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co)

C’s mining operations underneath D’s canal caused water to escape and damage the C’s mine

Held that D was not liable as escape was C’s own fault

Ryland v Fletcher - Remedies

(AO1)

• C must show damage or destruction of their property in order for a claim to succeed.

• The most common remedy is for damages - which is awarded to cover the cost of repair or replacement of the property damaged or destroyed.

• May be possible to achieve an injunction, if the ‘escape’ is not a one-off event.

• Cannot claim for personal injury - (Cambridge water)

• Unlikely to be able to claim for PEL - (Weller)

• Contrib negligence can apply