rylands v fletcher how to answer

• 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.
• Parties 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)
• D  brings onto land Unusual use of land with a dangerous thing and keeps it there 

  Giles v Walker (accumulation of weeds was natural)

  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)

   Stannard v Gore
• 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 Rylands v Fletcher
• 7). 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
• peepeepoopoo poo