Rylands V Fletcher

• rylands v fletcher- ‘where a persons property is damaged or destroyed by the escape of non-naturally stored material onto adjoining property.
• essential elements of rylands v fletcher:

  • accumulation, bringing into the land.
  • of a thing likely to cause mischief.
  • which amounts to non natural use of the land;
  • which does escape and foreseeable damage.
• Brief facts of Rylands V Fletcher- a mill owner hired contractors to make a reservoir on his land to act as a water supply. The contractors negligently failed to block off disused mineshafts that they came across then they flooded the neighbouring mines.
• Parties to an action must have an interest in the land affected. Proprietary interest.
• There must be a bringing into land of a substance which is non-natural.
• The thing must be likely to cause mischief if it escapes: a test of foreseeability. the damage must be foreseeable not the escape.
• Hale V Jennings Bros: Likely to cause mischief.

  A fairground ride became detached from the main assembly while in motion and injured a stall holder as it crashed. The owner of the ride was liable as the risk was foreseeable.
• The use of the land must be non-natural ‘something extraordinary or unusual.’
• The thing must escape and cause foreseeable damage- Read V Lyons.
• Cambridge Water V Eastern Counties Leather:

  Defendants stored chemicals to do with leather tanning. There were frequent spillages over the years and chemicals seeped through the concrete floor and into the soil. It polluted an area where the claimants extracted water for the local population. Damage wasn’t reasonably foreseeable and too remote from site of spillage.
• Rules regarding fire and Rylands V Fletcher:

  • the thing brought into the lane must escape not the fire.
  • fire may be a dangerous thing but this may be limited to use when the fire has been negligently started by occupier.
  • Starting a fire maybe an ordinary use of the land .
• Remedy for Rylands = compensatory damages.
• Defences to Rylands:

  • consent
  • act of a stranger- Perry V Kendrick’s
  • Act of God- Nichols V Marsland
  • statutory authority
  • contributory negligence
• Transco PLC V Stockport:

  Rylands V Fletcher is a form of nuisance and it is unlikely to recover for personal injury.
• Rylands V Fletcher is a strict liability tort.