Rylands v Fletcher

• Rylands v Fletcher


  A strict liability tort concerned with damage caused to neighbouring land as a result of an escape
• Who can sue


  • Traditionally a person who can take an action has to have an interest in the land affected-own the land, rent the land or have some sort of proprietary interest in it
• Who can be sued


  • A defendant to an action will be either the owner or occupier of land who satisfies the four requirements of the tort - all of which must be present for ability
• Accumulation


  • This is the bringing onto the land - look out for words such as "collected/stored"
  • Giles v Walker-no accumulation as the thistles grew wild
• Non-natural use of land


  • Transco PLC v Stockport-Lord Bingham: the ordinary user is a preferable test so that this element is satisfied only where the defendant's use is shown to be extraordinary and unusual
  • Rickards v Lothian - domestic waterpipes were not a non-natural use of land
  • Mason v Levy Autoparts - court can consider amount and method of storage
• Likely to cause mischief if it escapes


  • The thing, which the defendant brings onto his or her land, must be likely to do damage if it escapes. This is a test of foreseeability
  • Key point: It is not the escape that must be foreseeable-only that damage is foreseeable, if the thing brought onto the land does escape
  • Transco PLC v Stockport-Lord Bingham: objectively it must be shown that defendant ought reasonably to have recognised as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger however unlikely the escape might be
• Escape and damage


  • Read v Lyons: "an escape from a place where defendant has occupation or control to a place which is outside of his occupation or control"
• Foreseeability


  • Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Countries Leathers: it is a requirement that the damage to the adjoining property must be reasonably foreseeable
  • The foreseeability of the type of damage is required in the same way as it applies to claims based in negligence. The Wagon Mound case applies to determine remoteness of damage
• Defences


  • Acts of a stranger-Perry v Kendricks Transport
  • Acts of God-This defence may succeed where there are extreme weather conditions that no human foresight can provide against. Nicholas v Marsland
  • Contributory Negligence
  • Statutory Authority
• Remedies


  • General damages-The Wagon Mound: only recover for damage which is reasonably foreseeable
  • A claimant must show damage to, or destruction of, his or her property in order to succeed in a claim for damages. The level of damages will be the cost or repair of the property damaged or destroyed