Roland v fletchers

• the essential elements...


  1. the bringing onto land

  2. the thing to cause mischief, if it escapes

  3.amouts to a non-natural use of land

  4. escapes and causes reasonably forseeable damage to adjoining property
• Potential claimants


  the claimant must have an interest in the land
• Potential Defendants


  1. creator of the nuisance

  2. the occupier

  3. the owner

  (Read v Lyons 1947)
• Read v Lyons (1947)


  Claimant was employed by defendant in their factory which made explosives during the employment an explosion occurred which killed a man injuring others including claimant, there was no evidence that negligence caused explosion.

  
• Bringing onto the land

  - Giles v Walker (1980) weeds are naturally growing

  - There must be a bringing of a substance

  - If the thing in the question is already naturally present, there is no liability

  - If the thing naturally accumulates on the land, there is no liability

  - Ellison v Ministry of Defence(1997) rainwater that accumulated naturally
• Likely to do mischief if it escapes


  - The thing that is brought onto the land must be likely to do mischief if it escapes

  - Courts will have to decide that the follow will cause mischief:

  - gas and electricity

  - poisonous gas

  - flagpole

  - tree branches

  - occupier chair from chair-o-plane

  - Hale v Jennings Bros (1938)

  
• Non-natural use of land

  - Rickards v Lothian (1913)

  - Lord Cairns in the H.OL in the RvF, indicated the requirement on anon-natural use of land.

  - British Celanse v A H Hunt Ltd (1969)

  - Courts are also prepared to accept certain activities may always lead to a potential level of danger
• The thing must escape and cause foreseeable damage


  - The stored item must escape from one property onto another property and cause damage

  - Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd (1947)

  - Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)
• Mischief


  The thing that must cause some sort of damage or inconvienience to the use of Claimant's land

  
• Remoteness of Damage


  Foreseeable physical damage has to be caused, not personal injury

  
• Act of a Stranger


  Defendant may not be liable if a stranger causes the thing to escape rather than Defendant themselves

  
• Strict Liability


  The legal responsibility for damage or injury even if you are not negligent

  
• Property Damage


  Damage to or destruction of property, including loss of use of the property

  
• Claimant


  A person who goes to court to make a legal complaint against someone else

  
• Defendant


  An individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.

  
• Point one Rylands v Fletcher essay plan


  Give definition as- Where a person's property is damaged or destroyed by the escape of

  non-naturally stored materials onto adjoining property. It's a strict liability tort in that the

  defendant may be liable in the absence of any negligent conduct on their part. Imposing

  liability without proof of negligence is controversial and therefore a restrictive approach has

  been taken with regards to liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
• Point two Rylands v Fletcher essay plan


  Explain that in Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council(2003) The HOL said obiter that claimants can't claim for personal injuries.

  Also cant claim for pure economic loss- Weller v Foot and mouth Disease Research Institute(1966)
• Point three Rylands v Fletcher essay plan


  State that the claimant is someone who must have a proprietary interest in the land- APPLY- who is your D ?
• Point four Rylands v Fletcher essay plan


  State that the defendant in Read v Lyons was defined by Viscount Simmons as a owner or occupier of the land- APPLY - who is your C?
• Point five Rylands v Fletcher essay plan


  Requirements- state and apply to your scenario
• Requirements- state and apply to your scenario (Point five Rylands v Fletcher essay plan)


  1) The bringing on to the land and an accumulation or storage. If the thing in questions is already naturally present on the land, then there can be no

  liability-Giles v Walker (1890) No liability with weeds.

  2) The thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes

  This is a test of foreseeability. It is not the escape that must be foreseeable only that damage is foreseeable- LMS International v Styrene Packaging

  and Insulation [2005]

  3) Which amounts to a non-natural use of land- Case law suggests that "non-natural" refers to some extraordinary or some unusual use of land.

  Rickards v Lothian(1913)/British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd(1969)

  4) Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property- The stored item must escape from one property on to an adjoining property. Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)/Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd(1947)
• Point six Rylands v Fletcher essay plan


  Defences the D can use
• Defences the D can use (Point six Rylands v Fletcher essay plan)


  Consent- Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

  Act of a stranger- Perry v Kendricks Transport (1956)

  Act of God- Nicols v Marsland(1876)

  Statutory authority by Parliament

  Damage caused through claimant's fault - Eastern & South African Telegraph v Cape Town Tramways.

  Common benefit - Dunne v North West Gas Board
• Point seven Rylands v Fletcher essay plan


  Remedies the court can grant to claimant

  Damages
• Point eight Rylands v Fletcher essay plan

  Conclusion - It appears likely/unlikely that the D will be found liable of the civil offence of Rylands v Fletcher. Defences which can be used
• How many points in the Rylands v Fletcher essay plan?


  8