Tort Law: Ryland V Fletcher

What does it mean by Ryland being a strict liability tort?

Fault is not needed to be show

Claimant

Must have an interest in land (Hunter V Canary Wharf)

Defendant

Must be the owner or the occupier of the land- Lord Simon (Read V Lyons)

What is the first necessary elements from Rylands V Fletcher?

1) A thing is brought onto the land

What is the second necessary elements from Rylands V Fletcher?

2) The thing would cause mischief (foreseeable harm) if the thing escapes, not that its foreseeable the thing would escape

What is the third necessary elements from Rylands V Fletcher?

3) The storage of the thing amounts to a non-natural use of land

Can the thing that is brought onto the land be natural?

Cannot be naturally present on the land

(Giles V Walker)

The thing that would cause mischief if the thing escapes has included?

Gas and electric, Poisonous Fumes

Where has it been seen that personal injury is actionable and where was it stated in obiter that it is not actionable?

Personal Injury historically actionable (Hale V Jennings Bros)
Lord Hoffman in obiter not actionable (Stockport V MBC)

Why are fires rarely successful under Rylands?

Fires not normally brought onto the land and so its not the thing that foreseeably escapes

What is required under Transco and how does this apply for fires?

Requires an ‘extraordinary or unusual use of land’ fire may be brought to land but cases limited to deliberate or negligent occupiers

Who set out that the storage of the thing amounts to a non-natural use of land?

Lord Cairns in Rylands V Fletcher

What does Lord Bingham state about unnatural use of land?

“extraordinary and unusual”- Transco Plc V Stockport MBC

Is a use of land automatically natural if it provides a community benefit?

A use of land is not automatically natural if it provides a community benefit (Cambridge Water Co V Eastern Countries)

What is the fourth necessary elements from Rylands V Fletcher?

4) The thing stored escapes and causes foreseeable damage that is not too remote

What is an example where the C cannot claim in Rylands as the shell did not escape?

(Read V J Lyons & Co Ltd)

Where was it seen that the damage must be foreseeable from the breach for it not be considered too remote?

Cambridge Water Co V Eastern Counties Leather

Rylands Defences: Act of God

Something happens that no human foresight could provide against, usually extreme weather (Nichols V Marsland)

Rylands Defences: Acts of Strangers D has no control over

Perry V Kendricks Transport (Stranger removes a fuel cap)

Rylands Defences: Volenti (Consent)

No liability where D consents to the accumulation (Peters V Prince of Wales Theatre)

Rylands Defences: A wrongful act of a third party

LMS International Ltd V Styrene Packaging and Insulation

Rylands Defences: Statutory Authority

Attempted to be claimed in Charing Cross Electricity Co V Hydraulic Power, but unsuccessful

Rylands Defences: Remedies

C must show damage to their property to make a claim. Claims are limited to the cost of repairs or replacement of the property that is damaged or destroyed