rylands v fletcher

• negligence defined in blyth v birmingham waterworks (1856)- "failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person would not do"
• negligence can come from on act or omission
• claimant must prove:

  1. they were owed a duty of care by the defendant
  2. defendant was in breach of that duty
  3. claimant suffered damage caused by D which was not too remote*
• rylands v fletcher (1868)- mill owner stored water in a large reservoir water leaked into mineshaft below that hadn't been blocked off

  water flooded into neighbours mine and caused damage

  d was liable

  created new area of tort where d brings smth onto land which is likely to escape and cause damage (if escapes) they are liable to any damage caused it this occurs
• parties- transco plc v stockport- claimant must have a legal interest in the land to pursue a claim in Rylands, C was owner of damaged gas main
• non natural use of the land- accumulation- (increase or growth)- Giles v Walker- d not liable as accumulation of thistles was NATURAL *
• non natural use of the land- accumulation- transco plc v stockport- D's use of land must be "extraordinary and unusual"court should ask teh question whether D was an ordinary user
• non natural use of the land- accumulation- Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather- considered a non-natural use of land although claim failed as chemical damage wasnt foreseeable
• non natural use of the land- accumulation- Rylands v fletcher- bringing water of large quantities onto land to fill a reservoir was a non-natural use of land
• non natural use of the land- accumulation- Rickards v Lothian- trespasser turned on taps and blocked up plug holes flooding C's flat, D wasn't liable as domestic water supply a natural use of land
• Dangerous material- Hale v Jennings- substance accumulated must be dangerous the chair from the ride that escaped and flew off mid-ride was dangerous
• Dangerous material- Transco plc v stockport- water pipe supplying water to flats leaked washed away the earth supporting a gas pipe owned by C- C's claim failed, water in the pipe did not pose exceptional risk, was not dangerous
• Dangerous material- stannard v Gore- tyres not dangerous activity was ordinary activity, caught fire and escaped
• Dangerous material- LMS International Ltd v styrene Ltd- storage of flammable materials was a non-natural use of land
• escape- read v Lyons*- there was no escape onto another land rylands did not apply
• damage- Cambridge water v eastern counties leather*- C's claim failed, storage of chemicals not foreseeable that C's activities would contaminate D's spring
• Defences to Rylands v Fletcher- Act of stranger- Perry v Kendricks*- D is not liable if the escape is caused by the deliberate and unforeseen act of a stranger something that D has no control of
• Defences to Rylands v Fletcher- Act of God- Nichols v Marsland- natural event so enormous cannot be foreseen or guarded against
• Defences to Rylands v Fletcher- statutory authority- Green v Chelsea waterworks*- D not liable if the escape occurs during activities authorised by an act of parliament
• Definition

  A person who brings onto their land and keeps there a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural

  use of the land is strictly liable for any damage caused by its escape.

  ● Idea is to protect an occupier of land from an isolated escape of something dangerous from

  neighbouring land, as opposed to an ongoing interference

  ● No need to prove fault or negligence on D’s part
• 1. Parties

  ● Claimant must have a legal interest in land to pursue a claim (as in nuisance)

  ○ Transco v Stockport (owner of a gas main which had been damaged)

  ● Defendant must have control over land on which the dangerous material was present

  ○ Read v Lyons (D had control over factory in which explosion took place)
• 2. D brings onto his land and keeps there

  Must be an artificial accumulation, not something naturally present or accumulating naturally

  ● Giles v Walker (accumulation of weeds was natural)
• 3. Dangerous material

  ● The thing must be likely to cause damage if it does escape, e.g. chemicals, explosives

  ○ Hale v Jennings (chair from chair-o-plane ride)

  ● Includes things not inherently dangerous, provided it poses an exceptional risk if it escapes

  ○ Rylands v Fletcher (large quantity of water)

  ● Fire spreading does not usually give rise to liability under R v F unless material stored was a

  known fire risk
• 3. dangerous material

  ○ Stannard v Gore (storage of tyres on light industrial site was not exceptionally

  dangerous and tyres hadn’t “escaped”)

  ○ LMS v Styrene (storage of flammable material did give rise to liability)
• 4. Non-natural (extraordinary and unusual) use of land

  What is considered “non-natural” will vary depending on time and place

  ● Can include storage of natural material in a non-natural amount

  ○ Rylands v Fletcher (storage of large quantity of water in an artificial reservoir)

  ● A potentially dangerous activity, e.g. bulk storage of chemicals, will be considered non-natural

  ○ Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather

  ● Modern approach is to consider whether D’s use of land was extraordinary or unusual

  ○ Transco v Stockport (domestic water supply was an ordinary use of land)
• 5. Escape

  Escape from land over which D has control to land which he or she does not control

  ● Read v Lyons (no liability where explosion took place inside factory)
• 6. Causes damage

  Escaping material must cause damage of a foreseeable kind

  ● Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (contamination of C’s spring was too remote

  from site of spillage)

  Can only claim for property damage – no liability for personal injury under R v F
• Defences to Rylands

  ● Act of a stranger

  ○ Perry v Kendricks (3rd party threw lit cigarette match in petrol tank)

  ● Act of God

  ○ Nichols v Marsland (prolonged and violent rainstorm)

  ● Statutory authority

  ○ Green v Chelsea Waterworks (D’s activities were authorised by an Act of Parliament)

  ● Consent

  ○ Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (sprinkler system installed for benefit of both parties)

  ● Contributory negligence