Rylands v fletcher

• Rylands v Fletcher Definition:


  1. parties to action
  2. Accumulation
  3. Dangerous substance
  4. non-natural use
  5. Forseeable damage
• Rylands v Fletcher:


  • F: the D made a reservoir as a water supply for his mill and mind shafts are not blocked off causing flooding to mine
  • Lp: a claim could be made if material was brought onto land and stored, it was likely to cause mischief if it escapes, which amounted to a non-natural use of the land and which escaped
• Parties to action


  • unlikely to be controversial invested majority of cases
  • Owner or occupier (vague) of land
  • Read v Lyons
• Read v Lyons: 


  • f: an explosion took place in ammunition factory causing injury
  • LP: the material has to escape from one property onto adjoining property - no liability here as there was no escape
• Accumulation and dangerous substance


  • bring to land means anything that wouldn’t naturally be there
  • Two obvious examples of exclusions are rainwater and plants(Ellison v MOD)
• Non-natural use of land 


  • this an objective rest which changes over time
  • Likely to mean unusual or extraordinary use
  • Natural use had included : domestic fires, defective wiring , water supply (Richards v Lothian)
  • Storage of chemicals or dangerous substance is likely to be unnatural (Cambridge water Co v eastern countries ) inherently dangerous
• Richards v Lothian: 


  • F: the unknown person turned on water taps and blocked plug holes causing damage to the flat below
  • LP: has to be a non-natural use of land- not present in this case as domestic pipes were a natural use of land
• Cambridge water Co v Eastern Countries leather 


  • F: stored chemicals seat through the concrete floor of factory into the soil below, polluting area where water was extracted
  • LP: damage has to be reasonably foreseeable and not too remote from the escape
• Foreseeable damage


  • the damage must escape the property (read v J Lyons)
  • The damage cannot be too remote, would a reasonable person have realised the problem? (Cambridge water v eastern country leathe)
• Fire:


  • a fire spreading to another property is likely to come under the tort if it’s dangerous in itself
  • LMS international v styrene packaging: if the objects are stored dangerously but not dangerous in themselves then they are not covered by the tort
  • Stannord v gore: after standard it is questionable fire is in itself a thing
• LMS International v styrene packaging: 


  • F: a fire started in the defendants factory containing flammable material and the fire spread to the adjoining property causing damage
  • Lp: the storage was a recognisable risk to the adjoining property and a non- natural use of the land
• Stannard v Gore: 


  • F: fire spread from the defendants tire fitting business damaging the claimants adjoining property
  • LP: tires were not exceptionally dangerous or mischievous, defendant was not carrying on any non-natural use of land on a light industrial estate
• Hale v Jennings Bros


  • F: a chair o plane car on ride became attached from main assemble and injured stallholder as it crashed to the ground
  • LP: owner of the ride was liable as risk of injury was foreseeable if the car came loose
• British Celanese v AH Hunt


  • F: defendant stored strips of foil blew off d’s land on an electricity substation- caused power failure
  • LP: held at the use of land was natural because of the benefit obtained by the local population
• Defences - act of a stranger 


  • if a stranger over whom the defendant has no control has been the cause of the escape causing the damage then the defendant may not be liable
  • (Perry v kendricks Transport )
• Perry v Kendricks Transport 


  • F: D’s parked the bus on parking space having drained a tank of petrol and stranger removed petrol and child was injured - another child through match into tank
  • LP: there was a valid defence of an act of a stranger and no liability
• Defences - act of god 


  • this defence may succeed whether there are extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight can provide against’.
  • Only likely to succeed if there are unforeseeable weather conditions
  • (nichols v marsland)
• Nichols v Marsland


  • F: D made 3 artificial ornamentals by damming natural stream. Thunderstorms by torrential rain caused destruction of bridges on claimants land.
  • LP: no liability because the weather conditions were too extreme and amounted to an act of God
• Remedies 


  • injunction
  • Damages (after Coventry v Lawrence)
  • Abatement