Issue:
The issue is whether Lorraine and Steve will be liable for damages under Rylands and Fletcher when a large fish tank, holding 800 litres of water, is accidentally knocked by a third party, causing the water to escape into Dave’s apartment below, causing damage to the property and furnishings.
Principles:
The principles of Rylands and Fletcher are; bringing something onto land that is likely to cause mischief, the use of land in a manner which is non-natural, and when a thing escapes and causes harm. A plaintiff must prove all principles to find someone liable. The defendant is able to use defences by Blackburn J and Lord Moulton.
Brings Something Onto the Land, Likely to Cause Mischief if it Escapes:
Blackburn J, in Rylands …show more content…
Non Natural Use:
Lord Cairns in Rylands v Fletcher said that the defendant must have used the land for a non-natural use, bringing onto the land something that which in its natural condition was not there. Lord Moulton in Rickards v Lothian said bringing something onto the land must have increased danger, be a special use beyond the ordinary use of the land, or have a general benefit to the community.
Lorraine and Steve will argue the use of land was natural. Having a fish tank in an apartment is an ordinary use of land. Lord Moulton in Rylands v Fletcher stated the accumulation of water in an apartment is a natural use of land. Lorraine and Steve may argue this is able to extend to their fish tank. Although, this is able to be countered by arguing there were different fact situations and different quantities of water in question.
Dave will argue that Lorraine and Steve’s fish tank was not an ordinary use of land, due to the large quantities of water they kept in their apartment. This was not a normal fish tank and goes beyond the limitations of natural use of the land. Lorraine and Steve brought something onto their land which was not naturally there. The fish tank had to be installed, which Dave will argue means the fish tank is a special use of land. Dave will argue that a 800 litre fish tank in an apartment block is more special and non natural than the water in Rylands v Fletcher, due to the location …show more content…
Lorraine and Steve will argue the principles of this defence are able to be extended. The reasoning of this defence is that the defendant will not be liable when they had no control over the actions of a third party. Lorraine and Steve will argue the cleaner was out of their control and they were not responsible for accidental actions. The Box v Jubb principle states that if damage was caused that was out of the defendant’s control, they will not be liable. This includes when damage is caused by a third party, or a stranger.
Dave will argue that because Lorraine and Steve employed the cleaner they are responsible for their actions. The cleaner was under the control of Lorraine and Steve. They are responsible for The cleaner was not a stranger, which distinguishes the Box v Jubb principle. Dave will want to restrict the principles of Box v Jubb and Rickards v Lothian.
Conclusion:
Lorraine and Steve’s actions satisfied all the principles of the Rylands v Fletcher claim. But, because their fact situation was relevant to the ‘malicious acts of a third party’ defence, they are not liable for damages. Lorraine and Steve were unable to control the actions of the cleaner as a third party and are unable to control accidental incidents, they are thus not
The issue is whether Lorraine and Steve will be liable for damages under Rylands and Fletcher when a large fish tank, holding 800 litres of water, is accidentally knocked by a third party, causing the water to escape into Dave’s apartment below, causing damage to the property and furnishings.
Principles:
The principles of Rylands and Fletcher are; bringing something onto land that is likely to cause mischief, the use of land in a manner which is non-natural, and when a thing escapes and causes harm. A plaintiff must prove all principles to find someone liable. The defendant is able to use defences by Blackburn J and Lord Moulton.
Brings Something Onto the Land, Likely to Cause Mischief if it Escapes:
Blackburn J, in Rylands …show more content…
Non Natural Use:
Lord Cairns in Rylands v Fletcher said that the defendant must have used the land for a non-natural use, bringing onto the land something that which in its natural condition was not there. Lord Moulton in Rickards v Lothian said bringing something onto the land must have increased danger, be a special use beyond the ordinary use of the land, or have a general benefit to the community.
Lorraine and Steve will argue the use of land was natural. Having a fish tank in an apartment is an ordinary use of land. Lord Moulton in Rylands v Fletcher stated the accumulation of water in an apartment is a natural use of land. Lorraine and Steve may argue this is able to extend to their fish tank. Although, this is able to be countered by arguing there were different fact situations and different quantities of water in question.
Dave will argue that Lorraine and Steve’s fish tank was not an ordinary use of land, due to the large quantities of water they kept in their apartment. This was not a normal fish tank and goes beyond the limitations of natural use of the land. Lorraine and Steve brought something onto their land which was not naturally there. The fish tank had to be installed, which Dave will argue means the fish tank is a special use of land. Dave will argue that a 800 litre fish tank in an apartment block is more special and non natural than the water in Rylands v Fletcher, due to the location …show more content…
Lorraine and Steve will argue the principles of this defence are able to be extended. The reasoning of this defence is that the defendant will not be liable when they had no control over the actions of a third party. Lorraine and Steve will argue the cleaner was out of their control and they were not responsible for accidental actions. The Box v Jubb principle states that if damage was caused that was out of the defendant’s control, they will not be liable. This includes when damage is caused by a third party, or a stranger.
Dave will argue that because Lorraine and Steve employed the cleaner they are responsible for their actions. The cleaner was under the control of Lorraine and Steve. They are responsible for The cleaner was not a stranger, which distinguishes the Box v Jubb principle. Dave will want to restrict the principles of Box v Jubb and Rickards v Lothian.
Conclusion:
Lorraine and Steve’s actions satisfied all the principles of the Rylands v Fletcher claim. But, because their fact situation was relevant to the ‘malicious acts of a third party’ defence, they are not liable for damages. Lorraine and Steve were unable to control the actions of the cleaner as a third party and are unable to control accidental incidents, they are thus not