Term
| Do you need to prove fault for a Rylands v Fletcher claim? |
|
Definition
| NO - however, the D must have known or ought reasonably to have foreseent hat the something which escaped could cause damage if it escaped. |
|
|
Term
| Rylands v Fletcher [1868] |
|
Definition
D got cotnractors to build a resevoir on his land
when the contractors filled it with water, water went through some disused mine shafts and flooded the C's land
Cost £937 damage
HELD - C won their claim, introduced the Rylands v Fletcher nuisance |
|
|
Term
| In Rylands v Fletcher [1886], why didn't the Cs sue for nuisance? |
|
Definition
| Because it was a one off event (not representatinve of an underlying state of affairs) |
|
|
Term
| What elements do you have to prove for Rylands v Fletcher? |
|
Definition
i) The D brought something 'likely to do mischief' on to his land
ii) The thing which the D brought on to his land was something not naturally there (or non-natural user)
iii) There must be an escape beyond the boundaries of the D's land onto someone elses land
iv) the damage must be reasonably foreseeable |
|
|
Term
| Rickards v Lothian [1913] - on something likely of doing a mischief |
|
Definition
| DOMESTIC WATER (E.G. FROM A SINK OR A BATH) = NOT CAPABLE OF BEING SOMETHING LIKELY TO CAUSE A MISCHIEF |
|
|
Term
| Rylands v Fletcher [1868] - on something likely to do a mischief |
|
Definition
| WATER = CAPABLE OF BEING SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO A MISCHIEF |
|
|
Term
| Mason v Levy Auto Parts [1967] - on something likely to do a mischief |
|
Definition
| OIL AND GREASE = CAPABLE OF BEING SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO A MISCHIEF |
|
|
Term
| Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] - on something likely to do a mischief |
|
Definition
| CHEMICALS = CAPABLE OF BEING SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO A MISCHIEF |
|
|
Term
| Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Ltd [1921] - on something likely to do a mischief |
|
Definition
| ACID = CAPABLE OF BEING SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO A MISCHIEF |
|
|
Term
| Hale v Jennings Bros [1938] - on something likely to do a mischief |
|
Definition
A FUNFAIR RIDE = CAPABLE OF BEING SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO A MISCHIEF
NOTE - IN THIS CASE, THE C CLAIMED FOR PI. IN MODERN TIMES, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO CLAIM FOR PI UNDER RYLANDS V FLETCHER
D had a funfair ride
One of the cars on the ride decided to go on an 'independent flight' & landed on the C's land & hit him
HELD - Rylands v Fletcher applied. |
|
|
Term
| West v Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] - on something likely to do a mischief |
|
Definition
| POISINOUS FUMES = CAPABLE OF BEING SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO A MISCHIEF |
|
|
Term
| Shiffman v Order of St. John [1936] - on something likely to do a mischief |
|
Definition
| A FLAG POLE = CAPABLE OF BEING SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO AMISCHIEF |
|
|
Term
| What does 'the D brings something onto his property which is not naturally there'REALLY mean? |
|
Definition
SOMETHING WHICH IT IS NOT NATURAL TO HAVE THERE / HAVE BROUGHT THERE (taking account of societal etc. trends)
e.g. 2012, it is natural to have a TV in your house, it is not natural to have acid in your house
In 1856, it would not have been natural to have a TV in your house. |
|
|
Term
| Discuss 'water' w.r.t 'non-natural use' |
|
Definition
Domestic water = natural use
Commercial water = non-natural use |
|
|
Term
| Transco plc v Stockport M.B.C. [2003] - on something likely to do a mischief |
|
Definition
THE THRESHOLD FOR 'SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO MISCHIEF' = HIGH
DOMESTIC WATER = OK
D had a block of flats & a water pipe supplying water to all of those flats
Water pipe burst & caused damage to C's property
HELD - the water pipe was not something likely to do mischief
(DOMESTIC WATER = OK) |
|
|
Term
| Discuss 'fire' w.r.t 'non-natural use' |
|
Definition
| The courts HATE fire. Fire will always be non-natural. |
|
|
Term
| What is the only case you have to learn w.r.t the 'escape' element of the Rylands v Fletcher case |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Read v Lyons [1947] - on the escape |
|
Definition
THE 'SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO MISCHIEF' MUST ESCAPE FROM THE D'S PROPERTY ON TO THE C'S PROPERTY
C was injured whilst on the D's land. Therefore, there was no 'escape'.
HELD - Rylands v Fletcher did not apply. |
|
|
Term
| Can someone claim under Rylands v Fletcher for an isolated incident? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| If a D brings something on his land, likely to do mischief, but has taken reasonable care to prevent the escape - will he still be liable if it escapes? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| In which case was the HoL given the opportunity to dismiss the Rylands v Fletcher rule? |
|
Definition
| Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] |
|
|
Term
| Why did the HoL not dismiss the Rylands v Fletcher rule in Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004]? |
|
Definition
| Because they felt that it would leave a lacuna in the law. Also, successful actions are a raretiy. |
|
|
Term
| Whyyyy can you sue the D under Rylands v Fletcher when they have technically not done anything wrong? e.g. not negligence, or fault. |
|
Definition
| Because the D has brought something on to his land, for his own use & benefit. Therefore, he must keep at his peril. The innocent neighbour, who gains no benefit from it, should not have to be burdened by it. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
THE D MUST BRING THE 'SOMETHING' ON TO HIS LAND
D was not liable for the spread of thistles from his land onto the C's land, as the thistles grew there naturally. |
|
|
Term
| How can you consider Read v Lyons [1946] w.r.t 'something likely to do a mischief'? |
|
Definition
| In this case, it was held that Explosives = something likely to do a mischeif. However, the claim failed on the 'escapes' element of the test |
|
|
Term
| Read v Lyons [1946] - on 'something likely to do a mischief |
|
Definition
| COURT RECOGNISED THAT EXPLOSIVES = SOMETHING LIKELY TO DO A MISCHIEF - HOWEVER THE CASE FAILED ON OTHER GROUNDS |
|
|
Term
| Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] - on foreseeability |
|
Definition
| FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE IN THE EVENT OF AN ESCAPE = NECESSARY |
|
|
Term
| Is there a foreseeability element to Rylands v Fletcher? |
|
Definition
| Originally, there was no foreseeability requirement. However, since Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc, damage in the event of escape MUST be foreseeable |
|
|
Term
| Musgrove v Pandelis [1919] - on non-natural user |
|
Definition
WHAT IS DEFINED AS 'NON-NATURAL USER' CHANGES WITH THE TIMES
In this case, it was held that storing a car with a full tank of petrol in a garage was a non-natural use of the land
(NOTE - in 2012, this would = natural use of the land) |
|
|
Term
| Rickards v Lothian [1913] - on non-natural use |
|
Definition
| IT MUST BE SOME SPECIAL USE BRINGING WITH IT INCREASED DANGER TO OTHERS AND MUST NOT MERELY BE THE ORDINARY USE OF THE LAND, OR SUCH A USE AS IS PROPER FOR THE GENERAL BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY |
|
|
Term
| Mason v Levy Auto Parts of England [1967] |
|
Definition
| COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS WERE HELD TO BE A NON-NATURAL USE OF THE LAND |
|
|
Term
| Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] - on non-natural use |
|
Definition
CHEMICALS WERE HELD TO BE A NON-NATURAL USE OF THE LAND
D had tried to argue that in the present day, storing chemicals in a factory on an industrial estate = natural use of the land.
However, HoL rejected this, stating that Chemicals = 'almost the classic case of non-natural use' |
|
|
Term
| Transco plc v Stockport [2004] - on non-natural use |
|
Definition
| LORD BINGHAM = RYLANDS COULD ONLY BE ENGAGED WHERE THE D'S USE WAS SHOWN TO BE EXTRODINARY AND UNUSUAL |
|
|
Term
| Does a claimant under Rylands v Fletcher have to have a legal interest in the land? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which cases have established that in order to make a claim under Rylands v Fletcher, the C must have a legal interest in the land? |
|
Definition
Cambridge Water Co [1994]
Transco [2004] |
|
|
Term
| Transco [2004] & Cambridge Water Co [1994] - on who can sue? |
|
Definition
| THE CLAIMANT MUST HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN THE LAND ONTO WHICH THE 'SOMETHING' ESCAPES |
|
|
Term
| Transco [2004] - on who can sue? |
|
Definition
| THE CLAIMANT MUST HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN THE LAND ONTO WHICH THE 'SOMETHING' ESCAPES |
|
|
Term
| Cambridge Water Co [1994] - on who can sue? |
|
Definition
| THE CLAIMANT MUST HAVE A LEGAL INTEREST IN THE LAND ONTO WHICH THE 'SOMETHING' ESCAPES |
|
|
Term
| Can a C claim for PI under Rylands v Fletcher? |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Which cases confirms that a C cannot claim for PI under Rylands v Fletcher? |
|
Definition
| Lord Bingham's obiter in Transco plc [2004], and the ruling in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] (Hunter = a private nuisance case, but RvF considered to be an extension of private nuisance, therefore assumed that it will apply) |
|
|
Term
| Transco plc [2004] - on damage |
|
Definition
| Obiter - A C CANNOT SUE FOR PI UNDER RYLANDS V FLETCHER |
|
|
Term
| Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] |
|
Definition
| A C CANNOT SUE FOR PI UNDER PRIVATE NUISANCE (althought his relates to private nuisance, RvF is considered to be an extension of private nuisance, therefore, it is assumed that it will be followed) |
|
|
