rylands v fletcher

• Mr Justice Blackburn


  Rylands v Fletcher considers nuisance leading to property damaged or destroyed, created from the 'escape of dangerous (non-natural) things
• Steps for Rylands v Fletcher

  1. Parties to a claim

  2. 'Bringing onto the land'

  3. The thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes

  4. A non-natural use of the land

  5. The thing must escape and cause foreseeable damage
• Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd


  Claimants must have a legal interest in the property/land
• Read v J Lyons (step 1)


  Defendants are usually either the owner or occupier of the land
• Giles v Walker


  The substance must not be naturally present on the land.
• Hales v Jennings Bros


  We assess whether the damage if it escapes, is foreseeable, not the escape itself.
• Rickards v Lothian


  Non-natural use is some 'special use' of the land which brings with it some increased danger.
• Read v J Lyons (step 5)


  The item must escape from one property onto a neighbouring property.
• Cambridge Water Co


  Damage must be reasonably foreseeable.
• Remedy to Rylands v Fletcher


  Damages
• Defences to Rylands v Fletcher


  - Consent

  - Statutory authority

  - Contributory negligence

  - Act of God

  - Act of stranger
• What has to be shown for consent?

  1. C had knowledge of the precise risk involved.

  2. There was an exercise of free choice by C.

  3. C voluntarily accepts the risk.
• S.149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988


  Consent cannot be used for road traffic accidents
• Sterner v Lawson


  Consent: C needs to fully understand the risk
• Smith v Baker


  Consent cannot be used if C had no choice but to accept the risk
• Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlem Royal and Moudsley Hospitals


  Consent in medical cases doesn't require a detailed explanation of remote side effects.
• Haynes v Harwood


  There is no consent if C is acting under a public duty
• Allen v Gulf Oil Refining


  Statutory authority: Activities that amount to a nuisance may be regulated or licensed by laws.
• Wheeler v Saunders


  Statutory authority: Planning permission must change the character of the neighbourhood for nuisance to be reasonable
• Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

  Damages can be reduced if C contributed to their harm
• Nichols v Marsland


  Act of God: D may not be liable where there are extreme conditions that 'no human foresight can provide against.
• Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd


  D may not be liable if a stranger caused the escape