Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
rylands v fletcher (1896) - Coggle Diagram
rylands v fletcher (1896)
the law by RvF, 4 crucial elements
1) a bringing onto the land and accumulating 2) of a thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes 3) which amounts to a non-natural use of the land 4) and which does escape and causes damage
Facts - reservoir built for water supply to mill, failed to block off disused mineshafts, unknown, connected to used and flooded those
Held - all elements of tort satisfied - large volume of water brought onto land, such large volume likely to cause damage if escapes, huge quantity was non-natural use of land, water did escape and caused considerable damage.
key words
a bringing onto the land - (Pontardawe RDC) if the thing is naturally present on the land, then there can be no liability.
the thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes - doesn't have to be inherently dangerous (Shiffman) but harm has to be foreseeable if it were to escape (Hale v Jennings Brothers).
which amounts to a non-natural use of the land - (Richards v Lothian) "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 as is proper for the general benefit of the community.
which amounts to a non-natural use of the land - things associated with a domestic use of land will not normally be classified as non-natural even though they may be hazardous.
the 'thing' must actually escape - an escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control (Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd)
nuisance - does not have to be accumulated on the land in order to count as nuisance, however, it does have to be brought onto the land for the Ds purpose.
cases
Cambridge Water Co - water company for domestic consumption, D owned tannery using solvents to degrease animal skins, solvent seeped through floor. contaminating water, storage of chemicals was non-natural, C activity as source of local employment was natural.
Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd - potential Ds include either owner or occupier of land who also satisfied the 4 crucial elements, Lord MacMillan: requirement for claimant to have proprietary interest in the land, however, (British Celanese), Lawton J felt this was too restrictive and more claimants should be able to bring a claim.
Ellison v MOD - rainwater accumulated naturally on airfield which didn't lead to a liability when it escaped and caused flooding on neighbouring land.
Leakey v National Trust - Ds liable because they knew of possibility that the mound of land could slide and yet failed to do anything to prevent it.
Miles v Forest Rock Granite Company Ltd - C injured when rocks flew onto the highway from Ds land where they were blasting, explosives had been brought onto land which caused rocks to escape, so liable, the thing that is brought onto the land does not necessarily have to be the thing that escapes and causes mischief.
Musgrove v Pandelis - car's petrol tank caught fire and spread to neighbours house, fire was unlikely but certainly would cause mischief if escaped.
Shiffman v Grand Priory - the thing that escaped and went on to cause damage was a flagpole, acceptable for the thing to become dangerous once it escapes; doesn't have to be inherently dangerous.
Hale v Jennings Brothers - 'chair-o-plane' car on fairground became detached whilst in motion, injured stallholder as crashed to ground, owner of ride liable, risk of injury foreseeable if care came loose.
more cases
Giles v Walker - held that there could be no liability for a thing that naturally accumulates on the land; spread of weeds onto neighbouring land, no liability.
Transco plc v Stockport - council responsible for high pressure water pipe supplying multi-storey flats, leaked over period of time and caused embankment to collapse, exposing Cs gas pipeline leaving it in very dangerous position, HoL held that there was no accumulation and that the use of a land was a normal use.
AG v Corke - travellers camping on Cs land, trespass and nuisance, gypsies held to be 'likely to do mischief if they escaped'
Rickards v Lothian - use of land '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 as is proper for the general benefit of the community, domestic water supply held to be a natural use of land, D not liable when unknown person turned on water taps and blocked plugholes in his premise, so damage caused in flat below.
Sochaki v Sas - fire in a domestic context has been held to be a natural use, fire started from a spark from a domestic grate and spread to C's premise, no liability.
Peters v The Prince of Wales Theatre Ltd - C occupied part of theatre, sprinkler system within caused flooding and damages C's stock, no liability since use of land was not non-natural.
more cases
Mason v Levy Auto Parts - large quantities of scrap tyres stored on Ds land, ignited and fire damaged C's premise, liable under R&F as the storage of 'such combustible materials' was a non-natural use of land.
British Celanese v A H Hunt - D stored strips of metal foil, used in process of manufacturing electrical components, caused power failure for electricity substation when blew from D's land, use of land was natural so no liability.