Law Of Tort: Torts Affecting Land: Rylands V Fletcher: Definition And Conditions Of Liability (Copy) (Copy)
LAW OF TORT
TORTS AFFECTING LAND
RYLANDS v FLETCHER
DEFINITION AND CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
INTRODUCTION TO RYLANDS v FLETCHER
Definition
• Rylands v Fletcher is a tort imposing strict liability on a defendant who brings onto land and accumulates a dangerous thing which escapes and causes damage.
• Liability may arise even where the defendant has not been negligent.
• It is therefore classified as a tort of strict liability.
Examination Definition
Classic Definition
From Rylands v Fletcher:
A person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril.
Importance
• Protects neighbouring landowners.
• Places responsibility upon persons creating exceptional risks.
• Provides compensation where dangerous things escape.
• Encourages safe management of hazardous activities.
FACTS OF RYLANDS v FLETCHER
Facts
• Defendant employed contractors to construct a reservoir.
• Unknown disused mine shafts existed beneath the land.
• Water escaped through shafts.
• Claimant’s neighbouring mine flooded.
• Serious damage resulted.
Decision
• Defendant liable.
Principle Established
• Liability may arise despite absence of personal negligence.
• Defendant responsible for escape of dangerous accumulation.
Significance
• Established modern doctrine of strict liability.
• One of the most important tort cases affecting land.
NATURE OF LIABILITY
Strict Liability
Meaning
• Liability imposed without proof of fault.
Claimant Does Not Need To Prove
• Carelessness.
• Lack of reasonable care.
• Breach of duty.
• Negligence.
Focus Of The Tort
The focus is upon:
• Dangerous accumulation.
• Escape.
• Resulting damage.
Comparison With Negligence
| Negligence | Rylands v Fletcher |
|---|---|
| Fault-based | Strict liability |
| Breach required | No breach required |
| Duty of care required | No duty of care required |
| Focus on conduct | Focus on dangerous accumulation |
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY
Overview
To establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher, the claimant must prove:
Condition 1
• Defendant brought a thing onto land.
Condition 2
• The thing was likely to cause mischief if it escaped.
Condition 3
• There was a non-natural use of land.
Condition 4
• The thing escaped.
Condition 5
• Damage occurred.
Condition 6
• Damage was reasonably foreseeable.
CONDITION 1
ACCUMULATION OR BRINGING ONTO LAND
Rule
• Defendant must bring onto land something that is subsequently capable of escaping.
• The thing must be accumulated or collected.
Meaning Of Accumulation
• Defendant actively introduces or stores the thing.
• It is not naturally present.
Why Is This Requirement Important?
• Liability is based upon creation of risk.
• Defendant must be responsible for introducing danger.
Leading Case: Giles v Walker
Facts
• Naturally occurring thistles spread to neighbouring land.
Decision
• No liability.
Principle
• Defendant had not brought the thistles onto land.
Significance
• Naturally occurring things generally insufficient.
Examples Of Accumulation
Water Reservoir
• Rylands v Fletcher.
Chemicals
• Cambridge Water.
Gas Storage
• Potential accumulation.
Electricity
• Potential accumulation.
CONDITION 2
DANGEROUS THING
Rule
Thing must be:
Likely to do mischief if it escapes.
Meaning
• Need not be inherently dangerous.
• Danger may arise from:
-
Quantity.
-
Circumstances.
-
Location.
Examples
Dangerous Things
• Large quantities of water.
• Chemicals.
• Sewage.
• Electricity.
• Gas.
• Oil.
• Explosives.
• Fire.
Leading Case: Musgrove v Pandelis
Facts
• Petrol tank exploded.
Decision
• Liability recognised.
Principle
• Petrol capable of causing damage if uncontrolled.
Significance
• Demonstrates dangerous thing requirement.
Examination Point
Small Quantity
• May not be dangerous.
Large Quantity
• More likely dangerous.
CONDITION 3
NON-NATURAL USE OF LAND
Rule
• Defendant must make a non-natural use of land.
Meaning
• Extraordinary use.
• Unusual use.
• Special use creating increased danger.
Not Simply Artificial
• Means exceptional rather than ordinary.
Leading Case: Rickards v Lothian
Facts
• Water overflowed from premises.
Decision
• No liability.
Principle
• Ordinary domestic water supply is natural use.
Lord Moulton’s Definition
Some special use bringing with it increased danger to others.
Examples Of Non-Natural Use
Likely Non-Natural
• Large reservoir.
• Chemical storage.
• Oil refinery.
• Explosives.
Likely Natural
• Domestic water supply.
• Ordinary household use.
• Normal residential occupation.
Leading Case: Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
Facts
• Industrial chemical storage contaminated water supply.
Decision
• Non-natural use established.
Significance
• Modern authority.
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
CONDITION 4
ESCAPE
Rule
• Dangerous thing must escape from defendant’s land.
Meaning Of Escape
Movement from:
• Defendant’s control
to
• Outside defendant’s control.
Essential Requirement
Without escape:
• No Rylands liability.
Leading Case: Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd
Facts
• Explosion occurred inside munitions factory.
• Claimant injured while on defendant’s premises.
Decision
• No liability.
Principle
• No escape occurred.
Significance
• Escape is essential element.
Examination Rule
Defendant’s Land → Claimant’s Land
• Escape established.
Injury Occurs On Defendant’s Land
• Escape absent.
CONDITION 5
DAMAGE
Rule
• Escape must cause actual damage.
Types Of Damage
Property Damage
• Flooding.
• Structural damage.
• Contamination.
• Destruction of crops.
Importance
• Actual loss must be proven.
Leading Case: Rylands v Fletcher
Damage
• Flooded mine.
Examination Point
• Mere risk is insufficient.
• Actual damage required.
CONDITION 6
FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE
Modern Requirement
• Damage must be reasonably foreseeable.
Historical Position
• Originally foreseeability was not required.
Modern Position
• Foreseeability now essential.
Leading Case: Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
Facts
• Solvent leaked into groundwater.
• Water supply contaminated.
Decision
• Claim failed.
Principle
• Damage was not reasonably foreseeable.
Significance
• Introduced foreseeability requirement.
Leading Case: Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Principle
• Confirmed modern foreseeability requirement.
Significance
• Leading modern authority.
Examination Question
Court asks:
Was the type of damage reasonably foreseeable?
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS
| Condition | Authority |
|---|---|
| Accumulation | Giles v Walker |
| Dangerous Thing | Rylands v Fletcher |
| Non-Natural Use | Rickards v Lothian |
| Escape | Read v J Lyons |
| Damage | Rylands v Fletcher |
| Foreseeability | Cambridge Water |
| Modern Confirmation | Transco |
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONDITIONS
All Conditions Must Be Present
Missing One Element
• Claim fails.
Example
No escape:
• Read v J Lyons.
Example
No foreseeability:
• Cambridge Water.
Example
Natural use only:
• Rickards v Lothian.
POLICY REASONS FOR THE RULE
Risk Creation
• Defendant creates unusual danger.
Protection Of Neighbours
• Neighbouring landowners protected.
Fairness
• Person benefiting from dangerous activity bears losses.
Public Safety
• Encourages safe management of hazards.
AO2 APPLICATION
Step 1
• Identify dangerous thing.
Step 2
• Determine whether defendant accumulated it.
Step 3
• Assess whether use was non-natural.
Step 4
• Determine whether escape occurred.
Step 5
• Identify actual damage.
Step 6
• Assess foreseeability.
Step 7
• Conclude whether all conditions satisfied.
AO3 EVALUATION
Strengths
Strong Protection
• Protects neighbouring landowners.
Strict Liability
• Easier than negligence.
Encourages Safety
• Discourages dangerous activities.
Weaknesses
Complexity
• Multiple requirements.
Narrow Scope
• Modern courts restrict application.
Overlap With Nuisance
• Distinction sometimes unclear.
EXAM QUICK REVISION SHEET
Definition
• Strict liability for escape of dangerous things accumulated on land.
Conditions
Accumulation
• Giles v Walker
Dangerous Thing
• Rylands v Fletcher
Non-Natural Use
• Rickards v Lothian
Escape
• Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd
Damage
• Rylands v Fletcher
Foreseeability
• Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
Modern Authority
• Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia (AYLOTI), World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 11 World Records and 7 Distinctions, Educate A Change.