Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Rylands v Fletcher - Coggle Diagram

- - - - dont know abt mine
    - - if he did not do so, is answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape
  - - - D NOT liable, claim under Rylands failed
      - D's water pope cracked w/o D's fault
      - water escaped, nearby embankment collapsed
        
        exposed gas pipes, C spend money to repair
      - "brought/kept on his land exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing in extraordinary/unusually circumstances
        
        then entitled to recover compensation for any damage caused to his property by the escape of that thing subject to defences WITHOUT proving negligence
  - - - affirmed in Cambridge Water v Easter Countries Leather
      - and Transco v Stockport MBC
    - - rejected in Cambridge Water
- - - - 1) D must be owner or occupier of land
      - 2) D must bring/keep/collect an exceptionally dangerous/mischievous thing on his land
      - 3) D must have recognized/ought reasonably have recognize that there is a high risk of danger if that thing escape, however unlikely an escape may be
      - 4) D's use of land must be extraordinary and unusual
      - 5) thing must escape from D's property onto another property
      - 6) Escape must cause damage of rights &enjoyment of C's land
      - 7) damage for death/personal injury NOT recoverable
      - 8) not necessary to find D's negligence, but Act of God/stranger can be defence
  - - - Transco v Stockport MBC: narrower interpretation
        
        "exceptionally high risk of danger" if there was escape
        
        impose higher threshold
        
        Not satisfied in Transco: storage of water purely domestic, the use is NOT dangerous
    - - Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather
        
        D' spill chemical, into soil --> C's borehole
        
        C had to abandon borehole
        
        storage of chemicals in those quantities & purpose = non-natural use
        
        (Claim failed on other grounds)
        
        different from domestic use in Transco
    - - Read v J Lyons : D weapon factory, explosion injured C (working in factory
        
        claim failed, loss occurred on same premises
      - Stannard v Gore D store lots of tyre, accident fire, intensified by tyre, spread to G's premise
        
        Claim failed partly cuz accumulated thing did NOT escape
        
        fire escaped - D did not kept fire
    - - since Cambridge water and Transco say Rylands = subspecies of private nuisance
        
        follow restriction in hunter
        
        --> only ppl w interest in land can sue
    - - injury to land
      - personal injury?
        
        following Transco NOT recoverable
      - pure economic loss
        
        NO D Pride &Partners v Institute for Animal Health
    - - Cambridge Water
        
        foreseeability of damage of relevant type = prerequisite of liability in damage
        
        same remoteness rule as private nuisance
        
        not satisfied in Cambridge Water, cuz nobody foresee type of harm (not known that chlorine could accumulate in water)
        
        reasonable foreseeability of the type of harm assuming escape occurred
        
        escape itself does NOT need to be reasonably foreseeable
  - - - Consent by C
        
        consent to the presence of dangerous thing on D's land
      - Act of a stranger
        
        Perry v Kendricks
        
        boys threw match into petrol tank, explosion
        
        no claim
        
        whether intervention by 3P is reasonable and probable occurrence which D ought to have foreseen
        
        here it was not
        
        have to apply the test EI theres act of strangers
      - Act of God
        
        Greenock Corp v Caledonian Railway
        
        extraordinary rainfall not act of god
        
        confined to exceptional natural forces that CANNOT be guard against
    - - Transco v Stockport
        
        liability under Rylands is not particularly strict
        
        excludes liability when escape is for most common reasons (vandalism/natural events)
- - - - Burnie port authority v General Jones
    - - RHM Bakeries v Strathclyde Regional Council
  - - - residual category where it is just to impose liability w/o fault
      - many statutes passed on basis that Rylands represents common law
      - French and german law also have form of strict liability b/ neighbors
      - but still no reported case since WWII where anyone succeed w a Rylands claim
  - - - criticism of english position
        
        historically no requirement of proprietary interest in land
        
        rule should be concerned w one-off escape while nuisance w ongoing interference
        
        can distinguish b/ the two
        
        rules should afford remedies for personal injury
      - criticism of australian position (merging Rylands w negligence)
        
        thinks that rylands should not be abandoned/subsumed within law of negligence
        
        rule = residual mechanism for securing env protection
        
        C could face insurmountable burden of evidence (need to prove fault on balance of probability, might be inappropriate)
- - - - special rule: would be enuf to collect the dangerous thing on ur land, fire start, escape, cause damage --> this REJECTED
      - fire must be brought to the land and escape
        
        where fire deliberately or negligently started by occupier - but if thats the case wont use rylands, will just use negligence
    - - WORK ENDS HERE