Issue
The issue is whether Lorraine and Steve are liable under the rule of Rylands v Fletcher, when their cleaner accidently knocked open a valve to their fish tank, causing a large amount of water to drain into Dave’s apartment below, resulting in the damage of his furnishings and flooring.
The rule of Rylands v Fletcher
The three criteria you must meet to be liable under the rule of Rylands v Fletcher are; establishing something was brought onto land that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes, determining if there was a non-natural use of land and discovering if said thing escaped and caused mischief. There are three defences that both Lord Moulton and Justice Blackburn mention.
Bring something onto land, likely to cause mischief if it escapes?
Justice Blackburn’s statement is “…we think the true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own …show more content…
It is the quantity of water compacted in one place that increases the danger to those surrounding their apartment.
Lorraine and Steve have a leg to stand on in this section. However, it is hard to justify having a 800 litre fish tank in your apartment and say there is no danger or risk. For this reason, they would be found liable under non-natural use.
Escape, cause harm?
As established in Rylands v Fletcher, if the mischievous thing escapes, the defendant is answerable for all the damages which is a consequence of its escape.
Dave would argue that the water escaped and caused damage to his apartment. It is clear these damages were a direct result of the water escaping from the apartment above.
Lorraine and Steve cannot argue against the facts that the water did escape and cause harm.
Lorraine and Steve would be found liable under this criteria.
Defence?
Rylands v Fletcher identifies a defence if the damage was as a consequence of vis major, an act of god, or the plaintiffs
The issue is whether Lorraine and Steve are liable under the rule of Rylands v Fletcher, when their cleaner accidently knocked open a valve to their fish tank, causing a large amount of water to drain into Dave’s apartment below, resulting in the damage of his furnishings and flooring.
The rule of Rylands v Fletcher
The three criteria you must meet to be liable under the rule of Rylands v Fletcher are; establishing something was brought onto land that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes, determining if there was a non-natural use of land and discovering if said thing escaped and caused mischief. There are three defences that both Lord Moulton and Justice Blackburn mention.
Bring something onto land, likely to cause mischief if it escapes?
Justice Blackburn’s statement is “…we think the true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own …show more content…
It is the quantity of water compacted in one place that increases the danger to those surrounding their apartment.
Lorraine and Steve have a leg to stand on in this section. However, it is hard to justify having a 800 litre fish tank in your apartment and say there is no danger or risk. For this reason, they would be found liable under non-natural use.
Escape, cause harm?
As established in Rylands v Fletcher, if the mischievous thing escapes, the defendant is answerable for all the damages which is a consequence of its escape.
Dave would argue that the water escaped and caused damage to his apartment. It is clear these damages were a direct result of the water escaping from the apartment above.
Lorraine and Steve cannot argue against the facts that the water did escape and cause harm.
Lorraine and Steve would be found liable under this criteria.
Defence?
Rylands v Fletcher identifies a defence if the damage was as a consequence of vis major, an act of god, or the plaintiffs