- Information
- AI Chat
Rylands v Fletcher L2 - Lecture notes 2
Law of Tort (LAW209)
University of Liverpool
Recommended for you
Preview text
Rylands v Fletcher
Introduction - Special cause of action - Form of strict liability - Applies to isolated escapes
The rule in R v F - Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Plc (1994) - Rylands v Fletcher (1868) - Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2004)
R v F - HoL approved the comments of Blackburn J at the first instance - ‘We think that the rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes , must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is a natural consequence of its escape .’ - Ld. Cairns says defendant must also make ‘non-natural use’ of his land
Relationship between rule in R v F and torts of nuisance and negligence - A lot of debate - Supplanted by statute – Water Industry Act 1991 s - Other jurisdictions???
What has the HoL said? - Cambridge water co - Transco
Key differences - Strictness? - Key concepts? - What gives rise to liability? - Defences? - Contractors?
Ingredients to an action under the rule in R v F...
1 brings into his lands something likely to do mischief
- must be a voluntary act o Giles v Walker (1890)
- Requires evidence that D voluntarily brought something onto the land ((brought onto also means kept on))
- The thing does not need to be ultra-hazardous per se; it must be capable of causing damage if it escapes o Rylands – water o Hale v Jennings Bros (1938) – a fairground ride (and a passenger)
- Transco – per Lord Bingham o I do not think that the mischief or danger test should be at all easily satisfied. It must be shown that the defendant has done something which he recognised , or judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place and time , he ought reasonably to have recognised , as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape however unlikely an escape might be thought of.’
- What if... in Rylands the thing D accumulated on the land (water) was also the thing that escaped from the land (water)?
- What if the thing D accumulated on the land and the thing that escaped from the land are different? o Mark Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Robert Raymond Harvey G ore (2012) “I can see no scope for the application of the principle in the present case where there was no escape of the tyres which caught fire and the fire itself was not created by Mr Stannard.” – per Etherton LJ at para. 66.
- Look to compare... o Water (Rylands); o Electricity (National Telephone Co v Barker [1893] 2 Ch 186) ; o Explosives (Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guano Co [1921] 2 AC 465); oil (Mulholland & Tedd Ltd v Baker [1939] 3 All ER 253). o Did not apply to tyres (Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore [2012] EWCA Civ 1248). o Lord Bingham in Transco.
2 thing escapes - An escape occurs when the thing that causes damage moves from D’s premises to a place outside of D’s control o Read v Lyons (1947) - No ‘escape’ of a ‘thing likely to do mischief’ in Transco v Stockport MBC (2004) thus no liability. - The escape does not need to be accidental; intentional releases of things can qualify as ‘escapes’ if they were not aimed in the direction of C’s premises o Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996) - See: o Read v J. Lyons and Co Ltd [1947] AC 156, HL o Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772. o Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore.
Who can sue? - The claimant must have a proprietary interest in the affected land. o Cambridge Water , Transco, Hunter v Canary Wharf.
Who can be sued? - The Occupier of the Land from Which the Escape Took Place - The Rule Applies To “A Person Who For His Own Purposes Brings On His Land and Collects and Keeps There” the Thing in Question - Thing MAY or May Not Be Something Which In Its Nature Is Capable of Being Naturally There - What Matters is Whether the Particular Thing Has in Fact Been Accumulated There
Defences - Volenti o C’s consent to the dangerous thing being on his land is a defence - Contributory negligence o C’s damages may be reduced where C’s actions help to cause the escape of the dangerous ‘thing’ - Statutory Authority o D has a defence where the escape of the dangerous ‘thing’ is clearly connected to something D is authorised to do under statute. - Act of a Stranger o No liability where the escape of the dangerous ‘thing’ is the result of the actions of a ‘stranger’. o NB: This does not mean the 3rd party must be unknown to D!! o Box v Jubb (1879) o Rickards v Lothian (1913) o Defence will be unsuccessful where D should have foreseen the 3rd party’s actions and taken precautions against them - Northwestern Utilities v London Guarantee Co (1936) - Claimants Default o Wholly or partially the claimant’s fault. o Ponting v Noakes [1894] 2 QB 281 o Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s 1
Remedies - See nuisance handouts and lecture notes - Injunctions less likely to apply here given that Rylands v Fletcher relates to isolated escapes
Liability The Rule in RvF appears to determine that there is liability for DAMAGE done by the Escape of Dangerous Things accumulated on land - Regardless of Fault The rule applies Only if those things were accumulated for one’s own purposes NOT if accumulated in the course of natural use of land It is worth stating that the strictness of it is mitigated by a number of defences/criteria Some of which look to be incompatible with the logic of the rule itself
Application The application of RvF has been seen to be in decline since its inception However, the existence of Strict Liability for Dangerous Activities is far from being outdated. Despite the Apparent Conflict in principle in Negligence and strict liability, the conflict in practice is not as great a problem as the overlap itself. Arguably the tort of negligence can adapt to impose liability in situations far removed from cases of individual fault (incl those of RvF) Cases of consideration here – Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (Australian High Court)
Rylands v Fletcher L2 - Lecture notes 2
Module: Law of Tort (LAW209)
University: University of Liverpool
