Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Rylands v Fletcher, ACCUMULATIION, ESCAPE, | DIFFERENCE COMPARED TO…
Rylands v Fletcher
Principles
- D must control the land from which the problem has come
- Tort will only apply where the land onto which the dangerous thing is brought is in control of D
Smith v Scott (1973):
- Facts: Local authority let a house to a homeless family on condition that they didn't make any trouble. Promise was disregarded by family once they moved in and their behavior was so intolerable that their neighbour sued them under this tort.
- Held: Claim failed because this tort can only apply to the landlord as control of the land lied with the tenants.
D can also incur liability for bringing a dangerous thing on a highway if it escapes onto someone's land
Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire (1985):
- Facts: Police attempted to capture a dangerous psychopath fired CS gas into a shop which was set on fire by the gas.
- Held: Decided that the rule did not apply to the escape of things from the highway
- D must have brought or accumulated something in the course of some 'unnatural use' of the land
- The dangerous thing must have been accumulated or brought onto D's land in the course of some 'unnatural' use of land.
- Rule won't apply caused by anything that naturally occurs there (these problems will often be an action in nuisance or negligence)
- D won't be liable for damages caused by trees or plants that grow naturally, or the escape of water that is naturally present in the land
Giles v Walker (1890):
- Facts: D ploughed up forest land where a large crop of thistles grew there. The seeds blew onto neighbouring land causing problems on the land.
- Held: D not liable under this tort as thistles grew naturally and was not introduced by him.
Ang Hock Tai v Tan Sum Lee & Anor (1957):
- Facts: C rented a shophouse and lived on the 1st floor of the building. Ground floor was sublet to D who owns a tire/repair business and stored petrol. One morning D's premise caught fire, spread to the 1st floor and C's wife + child died.
- Held: D liable under the R v F as petrol was something brought onto to the land and it was a dangerous thing that escaped.
CA defined non-natural use of land as:
- "Some special use of bringing with it dangerous to others. [It] must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such as is proper for the general benefit of the community"
Rickards v Lothian (1913):
- Facts: D leased the upper part of a building. A tap there was turned on by an unknown person and caused a flood, which damaged stock kept by C on the floor below.
- Held: D held not liable as he was making an ordinary and proper use of the building
British Celanese v AH (Capacitors) Ltd (1969):
- D owned a factory on an industrial estate where they produced electrical parts. Metal foil escaped and blew into a overhead cable causing power failure that stopped production in C's factory.
- Held: D liable under negligence and nuisance but not R v F as the use of land is not an unnatural use of land. D's factory was situated at an industrial area
Abdul Rahman bin Che Ngah & Ors v Puteh bin Samat (1978):
- Facts: D (contractor) engaged to clear irrigation canal that went through C's rubber estate. Work involved clearing of bushes and leaves. D negligently set fire to bushes that escaped to C's land and destroyed rubber trees
- Held: D liable in negligence and under rule of this tort for escape of fire resulting from unnatural use of land.
- Industrial processes can be an unnatural use of land, even if they benefit the community as a whole
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994):
- Facts: D runs a leather manufacturing business for years. Their processes used a specific chemical solvent until 1976. By carrying out the old process resulted in frequent spillages of the solvent that seeped into the soil. It polluted the area where C a water company had their pumping station. Pollution was only discovered later on and C sued D.
- Held: Claim failed as the damage suffered was considered too remote. The main issue stated by Lord Goff is the issue of unnatural use. The storage of the chemicals is the 'classic case of unnatural use'. Although the activity benefited the community (creating employment) it did not render the use of the land natural.
[Industrial processes can be an unnatural use of land, even if they benefit the community as a whole]
- Rylands v Fletcher will only offer a cause of action where D's use of the land is out of the ordinary, considering time and place [current position]
Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council:
- Facts: D owned a water pipe that carried water to a large block of flats. The pipe broke and affected C's gas pipeline. C repaired the damage and claimed costs of the repairs under Rylands v Fletcher.
- Held: Claim failed as HoL held that pipe was not a unnatural use of land. HoL discussed how to decide the use of land was unnatural.
- Per Lord Bingham: The question to be asked is whether D had done something out of the ordinary, considering the time and place in which he did so.
LMS International v Styrene Packaging & Insulation (2005):
- Facts: A fire started in D's factory. Factory contained a large quantity of flammable material. The fire services within 5 minutes of being alerted but the fire spread to C's adjoining property. C brought an action in this tort along with nuisance and negligence.
- Held: D held liable under this tort as it accumulated things that were a known fire risk (stored in hot wire cutting machines that made ignition more likely). Storage represented a recognisable risk to C and a non-natural use of land. D also liable under negligence and nuisance.
- The thing brought or accumulated must be 'dangerous' - likely to cause damage if it escapes from the land
- The thing that D brings onto their land must be likely to do damage it it escapes, even though it might be safe if not allowed to escape
-
- There must be an escape of the dangerous thing
- Tort will only cover damage caused when a dangerous thing escape from D's land.
- Damage caused to someone else while in D's land not applicable
Read v Lyons:
- Facts: C was employed by D in their factory that made explosives for the Ministry of Supply. During the course of employment an explosion occurred that killed a man and injured others including C. There's no evidence that negligence caused the explosion. A trial judge held that the case is under this tort. CA reversed this decision as the rule in this tort required the escape of a dangerous thing.
- Held: HoL dismissed the appeal. As there was no proof of negligence on D or an escape of the dangerous thing, no cause of action for C to succeed. The explosion happened at D's premises = no escape from their property = no liability under this tort
Midwood & Co Ltd v Mayor, Aldermen, & Citizens of Manchester (1905)
- D held liable when an explosion on their property caused inflammable gas to escape into C's house and consequentially set fire to C's property.
Hoon Wee Thim v Pacific Tin Consolidated Corporation (1966):
- Facts: D built a reservoir on his land. Heavy rainfall caused water-bunds to collapse, water escaped to adjacent land. Caused death to the deceased by drowning.
- Held: Using sand-bunds to separate ponds of water considered a dangerous + unnatural use of land and any resulting damage will be caught under R v F.
- There must be damage as a result of the escape:
- Escape must cause damage.
- Normal rules of causation apply - damage must be reasonably foreseeable
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather (1994):
- Claim failed as the damage suffered was held to be too remote.
Defences
Act of God
- A defence where D could argue that the escape resulting in damage was caused by an act of nature
- But use of this is limited. Used when the escape occurs through natural causes that are unforseeable and occurs without human intervention.
Nichols v Marsland (1876):
- D formed artificial ornamental lakes on his property by damming a stream. Owing to extraordinary storm described heaviest in living memory, the water escaped and carried away C's bridges. D escaped liability using defence of Act of God.
Greenock Corp v Caledonian Railway Co (1917):
- Facts: D built an artificial paddling pool by diverting a stream. Heavy rainfall caused the pool to overflow, resulting in damage to C's property that was on lower ground.
- Held: D liable and rejected the defence of Act of God. By collecting and damming the stream, D had duty to ensure people staying on lower ground won't be injured.
Hoon Wee Thim v Pacific Tin Consolidated Corporation:
- Facts: D built resovoir on their land above ground level. Heavy rainfall caused the water-bunds to collapse, water escaped to adjacent land where deceased drowned. Administrator's of deceased estate claimed for damages.
- Held: Defence of Act of God failed and D's liable under R v F
-
Consent / Common Benefit
- If C has either expressly or impliedly consented to the existence of the dangerous thing, D won't be liable for any escape and resulting damage
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (Birmingham) Ltd (1943):
- Facts: D installed a sprinkler system to protect building from fire. C also occupied the building and complained when a fire struck by the water from the sprinklers.
- Held: The water sprinkler benefited both C and D = no liability
Sheikh Amin bin Salleh v Chop Hup Seng (1974)
- Facts: C owned 8 terraced houses and 4 was rented to D for his bakery (known to C). A fire caused by D's negligence destroyed all 8 houses. Courts found on evidence that C consented to use of the premise as a bakery with an oven and D couldn't be liable under R v F.
- Held: D not liable under R v F but liable under negligence for failure to guard/attend to the fire. Action in nuisance failed.
Statutory Authority
- Defence is important and same approach as that taken in nuisance.
- Courts will examine whether the breach of the rule in R v F is authorised by the statute in question.
Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894):
- Facts: D who were under statutory duty to maintain a continuous supply of water were not liable in the absence of negligence, the water main burst, damaging C's premises, horse and stock
Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co (1914):
- Facts: D were operating under statutory power to supply water for industrial purposes. These powers subject to a "nuisance clause" stated that nothing in the Act will release the undertakers from liability for nuisance. On this basis, D is liable when a high pressure water main laid under a city street can constitute something dangerous brought onto D's land and that it involved a risk of damaging C's property.
- Held: D held liable even in the absence of negligence.
Statutory Authority - Malaysia:
- If a statute imposes a duty to D to do something that consequently causes damage to C, D won't be liable
- But if the statute only gives a power of discretion to D, D may still be liable if he's found to be careless in exercising his discretionary power.
- Local Government Act 1976: Act 171, s72 (1)(a)-(j)
- Created to hold industrialists strictly liable for any damage caused in neighbouring land, regardless of whether or not they could've taken precaution to prevent damage
- Issue: you could not sue trespass because the damage was not direct + immediate. Also at the time tort of nuisance cannot be applied to an isolated escape. D was also not negligent as he didn't know about the shafts nor could he be vicariously liable for the contractors
- Facts: D (a mill owner) paid independent contractors to make a reservoir that was meant to supply water to the mill. During construction, contractors found shafts and a passage of an old coal mine on the land, some that joined up with a mine situated on neighbouring land belonging to C. Contractors could've blocked up the shafts but did not. Thus the reservoir was filled and it bursts through the shafts and damaged C's land.
- Held: HoL held D liable per Blackburn J: "A person who brings or keeps anything likely to do mischief it it escapes. He is prima facie answerable to all damages that is the natural consequence if it escapes".
ACCUMULATIION, ESCAPE, | DIFFERENCE COMPARED TO PRIVATE NUISANCE