Rylands V Fletcher

• Lord Goff made the point that, the rule in RvF is ‘essentially an extension of the law of nuisance to isolated escapes from land’. If property is destroyed/ damaged by something that comes from a neighbouring property, then it is a claim in RvF. The defendant us answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of it’s escape.
• Originally RvF was a strict liability offence which meant that there was no requirement to show that the defendant was at fault. However, now, established in Cambridge Water, any damage caused by an escape has to be reasonably foreseeable, not the escape itself.
• Apply- identity C&D, is there anyone who cannot claim? Can only claim if you have a proprietary right. Shown in Read V Lyons.
• The claimant must establish all the following four things in order to claim under RvF:
• The first is bringing into the land and accumulating by the defendant- there is no liability for something naturally on the land which escapes. Shown in both Giles V Walker and Ellison. OIR However, there is liability if the defendant has ‘adopted’ the nuisance. Shown in Leakey. In Rylands, there were unusual and extra ordinary amounts of water. Apply
• The second is, of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes- it is not the escape that must be likely, it has to be the mischief if the thing is onto land. Established in Cambridge Water, any damage caused by an escape had to be reasonably foreseeable otherwise it will be too remote and unrecoverable. Apply
• The third is that this amounts to a non-natural use of the land- the bringing onto the land must be ordinary and unusual, not domestic or normal. The rule applies when the defendant has brought something onto their property that was not naturally there, or non-natural use due to quantity or volume. Cambridge Water is where there was non-natural use therefore liability. In Transco, the defendant was not liable due to use of land not being non-natural. Apply
• The fourth is that this does escape and cause reasonably foreseeable damage- item must escape from one property onto the adjoining property, established in Read V Lyons. In Stannard V Gore, it highlights that the escape must be caused by item brought onto land. Apply
• Defences:

  • OIR act of third party- where escape is due to a third party action. Rickards V Lothian
• • OIR act of god- escape is due to natural causes that no human foresight could have guarded against.
• • OIR statutory authority- defendant is not liable if they are obliged by statute to do something. Green V Chelsea
• • OIR fault of the claimant- if the claimant is partly responsible then Law Reform (contributory negligence) Act 1945
• • OIR consent of the claimant (volenti)- where the claimant expressly or impliedly consents to the accumulation of the particular thing on the defendant’s land. Shown in Peters V Prince of Wales Theatre.
• Remedies:

  • injunctions- forces the defendant to stop the nuisance and restrain from any further nuisance. Kenneway V Tompson
• • Abatement- claimant is entitled to take steps to alleviate the nuisance. Lemon V Webb.