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;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Who can claim for RvF + case? |
Transco a person must have an interest in the land affected to claim (owner, renter or proprietary interest) |
|
|
Who can be a defendant + case? |
Read v Lyons D must be owner, accumulator or occupier of land. (have some control where the material is stored) |
|
|
What are the 4 elements that must be proven to establish RvF |
The bringing onto the land and an accumulation Of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes Amounts to non natural use of the land Which does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining property |
|
|
What can be claimed for under RvF |
Claim for PI unlikely to be unsuccessful Cambridge Water Claim for economic loss likely to be unsuccessful Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Unit |
|
|
What was outlined in The Charing Cross |
There must be a bringing and accumulation of a thing on the D's land |
|
|
What was outlined Giles v Walker |
If the thing is already naturally present on the land, there can be no liability |
|
|
What was outlined Ellison v Ministry of Defence |
There can be no liability for a thing that naturally accumulates in the land |
|
|
What must the thing be likely to do? |
Cause damage if it escapes Hale v Jennings Bros |
|
|
What was outlined in Shiffman |
The thing itself doesn't need to be inherently dangerous |
|
|
What must the damage from the escape be? |
The thing doesn't need to be foreseeable. It is the damage that must be foreseeable if the thing we're to escape |
|
|
Examples of things that cause mischief are |
Gas and electricity Poisonous fumes Flag pole Tree branches Explosions from dynamite Exner v Sherman power Occupied chair from a chair o plane ride Hale v Jennings Bros |
|
|
What was outlined in Stannard v Gore |
If the thing sets on fire causing an escape of fire the ordinary principle of RvF are applied. If fire or smoke escapes but thing doesn't no claim. |
|
|
Rickards v Lothian definition |
Non natural dependant on facts must: Be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and not merely by the ordinary use of land or such a use for the general benefit of the community |
|
|
Transco definition |
An exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing in extraordinary or unusual circumstances |
|
|
What is a truly domestic use? |
A natural use |
|
|
What was outlined in Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (non natural) |
Potentially dangerous activity likely to be unnatural |
|
|
Mason v Levy Autoparts |
A thing stored in large quantities and a haphazard manner will likely be considered non natural |
|
|
What was outlined in British Celanese v Hunt LTD |
If public's benefit is derived from use of land then courts can find the use to be natural |
|
|
What was outlined in Cambridge Water (public benefit) |
Some activities are always potentially dangerous therefore non natural regardless of benefit |
|
|
Read v Lyons (escape) |
Stored item must escape from land under D's control Or circumstances under D's control (Hale) on to the adjoining property |
|
|
Cambridge Water (foreseeable damage) |
Damage must be foreseeable from the escape (not too remote) |
|
|
Perry v Kendricks Transport LTD |
If a stranger who the D has no control over causes the escape which causes the damage then the D may not be liable |
|
|
Nicols v Marsland |
D will have defence if there are extreme weather conditions that no human foresight can provide against |
