Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
7 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Origin |
Blackburn J: ‘A person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril and is prima facie answerable for all damage that is the natural consequence of its escape.’ Lord Cairns added the following requirement - there must be a non-natural use of land |
|
|
Element 1 |
1. A bringing onto the land and accumulating __________________________________________________ If the thing in question is naturally on the land > no liability Giles v Walker ______________________________________________ It is still possible for there to be an action in nuisance when the defendant is aware of the natural occurrence but fails to do anything about it Leakey v National Trust 1980 |
|
|
Element 2 |
2. Of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes Doesn’t have to be dangerous because of what it is - it can become dangerous by the way in which it escapes Shiffman V Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem 1936 |
|
|
Element 3 |
3. Which escapes and causes damage __________________________________________________ 1. Escape Dangerous thing has to escape from the defendant’s land Read v Lyons 1946 the tort will also cover things done intentionally Crown River Cruises Ltd. v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd. ______________________________________________ 2. Causes Damage Must be proved that damage was caused and there is no liability for mere interference with enjoyment of land Hale v Jennings British Celanese v AH Hunt ______________________________________________ 3. Remoteness of damage HoL set down the rule on this in: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather 1994. D must have known or ought reasonably to have foreseen that damage of the relevant type might be a consequence of the escape of the thing likely to cause mischief Transco v Stockport |
|
|
Element 4 |
4. Which amounts to a non-natural use of land non-natural use of land = some extraordinary use of land Things associated with a domestic use of land will not be classed as non-natural Rickards v Lothian |
|
|
Strict Liability |
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher = a tort which imposes strict liability. Means that no fault has to be proved and D can be liable even if they took great care to avoid the thing escaping. However we can see that the court in a series of cases has narrowed this down: Read v Lyons 1947 > the courts added the requirement that the thing must escape from the Ds land before liability can arise Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather 1994 > the damage must be foreseeable, this again has restricted the situations in which a defendant can be found liable Rickards v Lothian > Lord Moulton > “must be some special use [of land] bringing with it increased danger to others” |
|
|
Defences |
1. Statutory Authority 2. Act of a stranger if a stranger over whom D has no control is cause of the escape > D may not be liable Perry v Kendricks Transport 3. Act of God defence may succeed where there are extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight can provide against Nicols v Marsland |
