Tort (LLB) - Rylands v Fletcher

HideShow resource information
Note -->
Liability in this tort means that the D is responsible for unforseeable harm, or held liable for forseeable harm even when he took reasonable care. Strict liability focuses on the nature of D's activity, rather than the way in which he carried it out
1 of 23
What case gives the definition of this tort under strict liability. Give the defintion.
RylandsvFletcher-'Who for his own purposes brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and if he doesn't so, is prima facie answerable for all' forseeable damage.
2 of 23
There are 6 requirements under Rylands v Fletcher, what are they?
1. The d brings it onto his land. 2. For the d's purpose 3. This thing is likely to do mischief. 4. This thing must escape. 5. The thing brought onto the land mustn't be for its ordinary use. 6.The damage must not be too remote
3 of 23
1. The thing must be brought onto the land. What if the thing is naturally occurring on the land? Give case.
If the thing is naturally occurring then the d will not be liable under Rylands v Fletcher. Giles v Walker (self sown thistle seeds)
4 of 23
However, what if the thing is naturally occurring on the land and the deliberately causes its escape? Will the d be liable? Give case.
In such a case the d will be liable for deliberately causing a thing that is naturally occurring to escape. Miles v Forest Rock Granite (blasted explosives which caused the escape of naturally occurring rock).
5 of 23
2. The thing must be brought onto the land for the d's use. What does this mean? What case backs this up?
The thing must have been brought onto the d's land for his use. In Dune v North West Gas Board the d's were not liable for causing serious injury through a gas exploison as they had not accumulated it for their purpose.Followed in PearsonvWestern GB
6 of 23
3. The thing must be likely to do mischief if it escapes. It is no longer a requirment that the things must be intrinsically dangerous.What did Lord Bingham say in what case?
Transco plc v Stockport MBC. '...many things not ordinarily regarded as sources of mischief or danger may nonetheless be capable of proving such if they escape'.
7 of 23
What did the case of Hale v Jennings Bros show to be dangerous when it escaped?
A fairground chair-o-plane was held to be dangerous.
8 of 23
In what case did they state that damage must be forseeable and that there was no need to retain the concept of dangerous thing because this is a presumption that is made when assuming the damage is reasonably forseeable?
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather. This rule applies to many things, such as water, gas,fire,electricity,explosives,vibrations,noxious fumes,flagpoles & fairground swings.
9 of 23
4. The thing must escape from the d's land or where the d has occupation and control over the land to a place where he does not. What case shows this?
Read v Lyons
10 of 23
However, it has been held in a recent case that the thing that escapes need not be the initial dangerous thing that has been brought onto the land, providing the escape occurs during non-natural use. What case shows this and explain this ruling.
Gore v Stannard 2013. In this case the thing (oil) didn't escape, but the oil caught on fire and the fire escaped. In this case, the fire and the thing were held to be the same thing.
11 of 23
5. Non natural use of the land. The thing brought onto the land must be used for non natural use of the land. What case defines this? What does this case say?
Rickards v Lothian. it 'must not merely be the ordinary use of such land or such a use is proper for the general benefit of the community'.
12 of 23
What did Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England Ltd show?
This case balanced the magnitude of risk against the social utility of d's activity in order to way up whether the thing was non natural use of the land.
13 of 23
In what case did the courts hold that ordinarily the thing (factory making electrical goods) would be non natural use but as it benefited the community in this case it didn't amount to non natural use?
British Celanese v Hunt
14 of 23
Are the courts reluctant to find that the thing was for natural use just because the community derives a benefit from it? Give case.
Yes the courts are reluctant to do so. In the later case of Cambrige Water v Eastern Countries Leather the courts held creating jobs for the community was not enough to deem it non natural use of land.
15 of 23
6. What case shows that Rylands v Fletcher is subject to the rules of remoteness of damage?
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
16 of 23
What is included in remoteness of damage? Give case.
The damage and kind of damage must be reasonably forseeable. Wagon Mound N01
17 of 23
5 defences. What are they?
1. consent 2. act of god 3. stat authority 4. act of a stranger 5. wrongful act of a third party
18 of 23
1. Consent give case example
Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
19 of 23
2. Act of god explain & give case example.
Nichols v Marsland
20 of 23
3. Stat authority what is this? Give case example.
Smeaton v Iford Corp
21 of 23
4. Act of stranger, explain & give case example.
Box v Jubb
22 of 23
5. Wrongful act of a third party, explain and give case example.
Rikards v Lothian
23 of 23

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

What case gives the definition of this tort under strict liability. Give the defintion.

Back

RylandsvFletcher-'Who for his own purposes brings onto his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril and if he doesn't so, is prima facie answerable for all' forseeable damage.

Card 3

Front

There are 6 requirements under Rylands v Fletcher, what are they?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

1. The thing must be brought onto the land. What if the thing is naturally occurring on the land? Give case.

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

However, what if the thing is naturally occurring on the land and the deliberately causes its escape? Will the d be liable? Give case.

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Tort resources »