Rylands v Fletcher

Intro

C may have a claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which is a strict liability tort

1. Who can sue?

The claimant must show that they have a proprietary interest in the land affected by the escape as an owner or tenant (Hunter v Canary Wharf)

2. who can be sued?

The owner or occupier who has accumulated the thing that escapes can be sued (Read v Lyons)

3. The five elements. D brings onto his land an accumulation of the thing that escapes

All five elements of the tort must be satisfied. First, D must bring onto his land an accumulation of the thing that escapes. There is a difference between things that occur naturally such as the thistles in Giles v Walker and something brought onto the land.

4. Secondly, the thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes

Secondly, the thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes. Dangerous things range from chemicals and explosives to water. In Hale v Jennings it even included a chair-o-plane in a fairground ride.

5. Thirdly, the thing amounts to a non-natural use

Thirdly, the thing must amount to a non-natural use. The courts have found it difficult to define ‘non-natural’ use. In Cambridge Water Co the House of Lords said the bulk storage of chemicals to be used in an industrial process was a classic example of non-natural use. In Transco v Stockport the House of Lords said that non-natural use is use that is “extraordinary and unusual”. So non-natural can refer to the thing itself or the quantity in which it is stored.

6. Fourthly, the thing escapes

Fourthly, the thing must ‘escape’. It must leave the land controlled by D to an area not controlled by him. In Read v Lyons there was no escape as the shell never left D’s premises.

7. Lastly, the thing causes foreseeable damage

Lastly, the thing must cause foreseeable damage. Here, there is factual causation as but for… (Barnett v Chelsea). There is also legal causation as the type of harm is reasonably foreseeable at the time of accumulation (Cambridge Water Co). This is a limit to the strict liability of the tort.

Defence - act of a stranger

If the escape was caused by a third party over whom D had no control (a stranger) then this will be a defence. In Rickards v Lothian the tap was turned on by a stranger

Defences - Act of God

This is a natural event which cannot be predicted or guarded against. The courts are relucant to allow the defence to be used unless the weather conditions are exceptional. In Nicholas v Marsland D was not liable when water escaped from his lake after a violent and prolonged storm,

Defences - Statutory Authority

There will be no liability if the escape happened whilst carrying out activities authorised by an Act of Parliament, provided negligence is not involved. In Green v Chelsea Waterworks this defence succeeded where D was under a statutory duty to maintain a supply of water and had not been negligent.

Remedies

The main remedy for a claim under Rylands v Fletcher will be damages. This may be special damages for damage to property. In Jones v Festiniog Railway C received damages when a spark escape and caused damage to property. It may also include damages for the damage to the land itself (Rylands v Fletcher).

Damages may not be claimed for personal injury (Transo v Stockport) or pure economic loss (Weller)