Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Rylands v Fletcher (Defences (Act of God- Nichols v Marshland- must be so…
Rylands v Fletcher
Defences
Act of God- Nichols v Marshland- must be so enormous that D could not be expected to foresee it or act against it
-
-
-
Claimants fault- Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co- escape due to fault of C or if express or implied conduct
-
-
-
Remedies
-
Contributory negligence- if c contributed to the harm under the law reform (cn) act 1946 damages can be reduced according to their share of responsibilty
All elements in R v F mus be satisfied (Read v Lyons) and the additional element added in Cambridge water Co v EC Leather
R v F- described as strict liability tort so even if the D has taken reasonable care to avoid the escape, they can still be liable subject to the availability of a defense. C will claim damages in the form of compensation
-
-
-
-
-