Rylands V Fletcher

Front 1

Intro

Back 1

C may have an action in the tort of Rylands v Fletcher. It concerns the escape of a dangerous thing [say what it is].

Front 2

Strict liability

Back 2

It is a strict liability tort, so the defendant could still be liable even if they tried to prevent the escape or did not know about it.

Front 3

If relevant: safety attempt

Back 3

IF RELEVANT: Here [eg. D could still be liable even though he tried to keep the danger safe].

Front 4

Proprietary interest

Back 4

C has a proprietary interest in the land affected because [eg. C owns / rents the house that was damaged] as in Hunter v Canary Wharf.

Front 5

Occupier of the land

Back 5

D is the occupier (or accumulator) of the land that the dangerous thing accumulated on because [eg. D owns / rents the house where the oil accumulated] as in Read v Lyons.

Front 6

Blackburn J

Back 6

The tort of Rylands v Fletcher was defined by Blackburn J: “anyone who brings onto his land and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes, is liable for all damage which is a natural consequence of its escape”.

Front 7

Likeability of mischief development

Back 7

The 2004 case of Transco plc v Stockport MBC has developed the tort further.

Front 8

C must show the following factors:

Back 8

Brought and accumulated on D's land

Thing that accumulates must be the thing that escapes

Does not need to be inherently dangerous, but must be likely to do mischief if it escapes

Damage must be caused and must be reasonably foreseeable

Must escape off land D has control over, or circumstances they have control over

There must be a non-natural use of land

Front 9

Mischief's cause

Back 9

The thing must be brought and accumulated on D’s land, as in Giles v Walker.

Front 10

Thing that accumulates

Back 10

The thing that accumulates must be the thing that escapes, as in Stannard v Gore. Fire/smoke. Any by-product

Front 11

Defendant's control

Back 11

The thing must escape from the defendant’s land over which they have control, as in Read v Lyons, or escape from circumstances over which they have control, as in Hale v Jennings.

Front 12

Non natural use of land a

Back 12

There must be a non-natural use of land, which means it is (a)‘extraordinary and considering time and place’, rather than a ‘truly domestic use’, as in Transco v Stockport .

Front 13

b

Back 13

It must be (b) potentially dangerous, as in Cambridge Water v EC Leather.

Front 14

C

Back 14

It is likely to involve (c)things stored in large quantities, as in Mason v Levy. [NB – apply each factor individually]

Front 15

Act of God

Back 15

The defence of ACT OF GOD arises where the thing escaped due to unforeseeable extreme weather conditions, set out in Nichols v Marsland.

Front 16

Damage caused

Back 16

Damage must be caused, and the damage must be reasonably foreseeable, as in Cambridge Water v EC Leather.

Front 17

Likely to do mischief

Back 17

Although the thing does not need to be inherently dangerous, as in Rylands v Fletcher, the thing must be likely to do mischief if it escapes, as in Hale v Jennings.

Front 18

Statutory Authority

Back 18

The defence of STATUTORY AUTHORITY arises where the thing was brought onto the land and accumulated under the authority of a law/statute, set out in Charing Cross Electricity v Hydraulic Power.

Front 19

Remedy

Back 19

As a REMEDY, the court may award compensatory damages under the DAMAGES ACT 1996, where the aim is to put the claimant in their pre-tort position.

Front 20

Conclusion

Back 20

TO CONCLUDE, [eg. whilst all the elements seem to be present, C is unlikely to have a successful claim against D due to the defence of Act of God].

Front 21

Mitigate loss

Back 21

C is under a duty to mitigate loss, which means to keep the loss to a reasonable level by getting the property repaired or replaced promptly.

Front 22

Volenti non fit injuria

Back 22

The defence of VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA arises where the claimant consents to the risk of damage when they fully understand the nature of the risk rather than just being aware of its existence, and exercised free choice, as in Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre.

Front 23

Special Damages

Back 23

C will seek special damages, for damage to property [say what it is] based on the cost of repair or replacement using the market value at the time of the damage.

Front 24

Common Benefit

Back 24

The defence of COMMON BENEFIT where the dangerous thing has been accumulated by the defendant for either the common benefit of both the defendant and claimant, or just the benefit of the claimant, as in Dunne v North West Gas.

Front 25

Act of a stranger

Back 25

The defence of ACT OF A STRANGER arises where the thing escaped because of the actions of someone over which the defendant had no control, as in Perry v Kendricks.

Front 26

Personal injury

Back 26

Personal injury claims are unlikely to be allowed.