rylands v fletcher

• What is the definition of the tort in Rylands v Fletcher?

  It involves bringing a 'thing' onto land that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes.
• What are the requirements to bring a claim under Rylands v Fletcher?

  The claimant must prove the thing was brought onto the land, likely to cause mischief, stored non-naturally, and escaped causing foreseeable damage.
• What is the significance of the case Rylands v Fletcher (1868)?

  It established a strict-liability sub-tort of nuisance.
• Who can claim under Rylands v Fletcher?

  Claimants must have an interest in the affected land, such as ownership or rental rights.
• What case confirmed that claimants must have a proprietary interest in the affected land?

  Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997).
• Who can be sued under Rylands v Fletcher?

  Defendants must be the owner or occupier of the land where the dangerous material is stored.
• What test did Viscount Simon create in Read v Lyons (1947)?

  A defendant must satisfy the four ingredients of the tort to be liable.
• What must the claimant prove regarding the 'thing' that escaped?

  The thing must have been brought and accumulated on the defendant's land.
• What case established that if a thing is naturally present on the land, there is no liability?

  Giles v Walker (1890).
• What is required for the 'thing' to be likely to cause mischief if it escapes?

  The damage must be foreseeable, not the escape itself.
• What are some examples of things that courts have established do mischief?

  Gas, electricity, fumes, tree branches, and detached fairground ride cars.
• What was the outcome of Hale v Jennings Bros (1938)?

  The owner of the ride was held liable for personal injury due to foreseeable risk.
• What did the Court of Appeal hold in Stannard (T/A Wyvern Tyres) v Gore (2012)?

  It was essential that an exceptionally dangerous thing be brought onto the land and escaped.
• Why is it rare for fire to fall within a Rylands v Fletcher claim?

  Because it is the 'thing' brought onto land that must escape, not the fire itself.
• What did the House of Lords decide in Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2004)?

  The council was not negligent as the water supply was a normal use of land.
• What is meant by 'non-natural use of land' in the context of Rylands v Fletcher?

  It refers to a special use that brings increased danger to others, not merely ordinary use.
• What case illustrated that the use of water in pipes is a natural use of land?

  Rickards v Lothian (1913).
• What was the ruling in British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd (1969)?

  The storage of metal foil was considered a natural use of land due to its public benefit.
• What did the House of Lords state regarding the definition of 'non-natural' in Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2004)?

  'Non-natural' relates to extraordinary or unusual use of land.
• What is the summary of non-natural use according to Transco v Stockport MBC (2004)?

  It should be 'extraordinary and unusual considering time and place'.
• What does the 'thing' need to be in terms of quantity according to Mason v Levy (1967)?


  The thing stored needs to be of fairly large quantity.
• What was the outcome of Shiffman v Grand Priory (1936)?

  A flag pole falling and hitting the claimant was considered an escape under Rylands v Fletcher.
• What is the significance of Mason v Levy (1967) in relation to Rylands v Fletcher?

  It established that the thing stored must be of a large quantity to be liable.
• What does non-natural use refer to in the context of Rylands v Fletcher?

  Non-natural use refers to activities that are extraordinary and unusual considering time and place.
• What case is cited as an example of non-natural storage despite public benefit?

  Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)
• What is the summary of non-natural use according to Transco v Stockport MBC (2004)?

  Non-natural use should be considered extraordinary and unusual based on time and place.
• In which case was it established that the thing stored need not be inherently dangerous?

  Shiffman v Grand Priory (1936)
• What was the outcome of Shiffman v Grand Priory (1936)?

  A flag pole belonging to the defendant fell and hit the claimant, amounting to an escape under Rylands v Fletcher.
• What does the case Mason v Levy (1967) illustrate about the quantity of things stored?

  The case illustrates that the thing stored must be of a fairly large quantity to justify liability.
• What was the outcome of the Mason v Levy (1967) case regarding fire damage?

  The defendant was held liable for the damage to the neighboring property due to stored petrol.
• What must the claimant prove in a Rylands v Fletcher case?

  The claimant must prove that the thing stored escaped from the defendant's land and caused foreseeable damage.
• What does the case British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd (1969) demonstrate?

  It demonstrates an example of a thing escaping when metal foil strips blew away from the defendant's land into the claimant's land.
• What was the ruling in Read v J. Lyons & Co. Ltd (1947) regarding escape?

  The House of Lords found that there was no escape of the relevant kind in this case.
• What does Viscount Simon define as an escape in the context of Rylands v Fletcher?

  An escape means an escape from a place where the defendant has control to a place outside of that control.
• What are the two conditions for an escape to be considered in Rylands v Fletcher?

  The thing must actually escape and cause foreseeable damage.
• What did the Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather PLC [1994] case introduce regarding harm?

  The case introduced the element of foreseeability regarding harm.
• What was the court's finding in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather PLC regarding damage?

  The court found that the damage was not foreseeable and was too remote.
• What is the defence of Volenti non fit injuria in Rylands v Fletcher cases?

  There will be no liability where the claimant has consented to the accumulation of the thing.
• What does the defence of Act of a Stranger entail?

  If a stranger causes the escape without the defendant's control, the defendant may not be liable.
• What is the significance of the case Perry v Kendricks Transport (1956) regarding the Act of a Stranger defence?

  The case held that the defendants were not liable due to the act of a stranger causing the injury.