Tort Law - Exam revision - Rylands v Fletcher (Nuisance)

Summarize Lord Cranworth in Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

"If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage."

Remedies for Rylands v Fletcher

- Injunction - Abatement - Damages

Defences for Rylands v Fletcher

- Statutory Authority - Consent - Act of a stranger (whom the defendant had no control over. Unforeseeable act of third party) - Act of God - Default or contributory negligence of the claimant

What are the four elements to the tort of Rylands v Fletcher?

1) Bringing onto land and keeping there 2) Something likely to do mischief when it escapes 3) The thing must escape 4) Non-natural cause

Liability for escape of fire

Most modern cases are dealt with under S.86, Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774. - No liability for fire that begins on premises accidentally > unless occupier was negligent in allowing the fire to spread - Liability for fires stated by mere chance/unknown cause

4) Non-natural use

Natural use has essentially been interpreteed as 'ordinary use'. Unusual or special, something quite out of the ordinary in that place and at that time, to impose liability.

3) The thing must esape

Proof of an actual escape is vital for the claim. The thing must move from the land controlled by the defendant to the land controlled by the claimant e.g. Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd > Munitions inspector visited defendants factory > shell exploded and injured inspector > No liability since the shell did not escape

Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage.

What was held in Rylands v Fletcher (1868)?

The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non- natural use of land.

1) Bringing onto land and keeping there + case

This means that anything which is naturally there, cannot give rise to an action. Giles v Walker (1890)

2) Something likely to do mischief when it escapes + case

the thing doesnt need to be dangerous in itself, but it must be likely to cause damage should an escape happen, and be categorised as dangerous for this reason. Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather Plc (1994)