Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law > Torts Connected to Land: Rylands v Fletcher > Flashcards

Torts Connected to Land: Rylands v Fletcher Flashcards

1
Q

What happened in Rylands v Fletcher? What was decided?

A
  • Fletcher had a reservoir built on his land. Some time later it burst and flooded Ryland’s mine
  • HoL held that Fletcher was liable for the damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What does Prima Facie mean?

A
  • On the first impression
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What does Vis Major mean?

A
  • An act of God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the four essential parts of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

A
  • Something must have been collected and kept on land
  • The use of land must be unnatural
  • The thing brought onto the land must be likely to cause mischief if it escapes
  • The thing brought onto the land must have escaped and caused damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What four issues has the court examined in terms of Ryland and Fletcher?

A
  • Does the thing collected and kept have to escape itself?
  • What is the meaning of ‘non-natural’ use of land?
  • To what extent must the thing be likely to cause mischief?
  • Is foreseeability of harm needed?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What happened in Smith v Scott (1973)? What was held?

A
  • When some tenants behaved in an anti-social manner, the neighbours sued the council as owners
  • The landlord was the council but the lease made it clear that the tenants were in control of the property
  • HELD - Council not in control of the property, nor had they permitted the nuisance. They would’ve only been liable if they had permitted the nuisance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What happened in Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire (1985)? What was held?

A
  • Shop owner’s premises damaged by police using a gas canister that they knew was a fire risk
  • There were sound statutory and policy reasons for the police to use this type of equipment
  • HELD - court decided they were negligent in failing to have the means to put out any likely fire
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Name three cases that concern bringing or accumulating on land a thing for an unnatural use

A
  • Giles v Walker (1890)
  • Rickards v Lothian (1913)
  • British Celanese v Hunt (1969)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was held in Giles v Walker (1890)?

A
  • Defendant not liable for damage to crops caused when thistle seeds from plants growing on his land seeded themselves on the claimant’s land
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Why did the claim fail in Rickards v Lothian (1913)?

A
  • The defendant had not accumulated, nor permitted the accumulation of the water and was not using his property for an unnatural purpose
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Why did the claim fail in British Celanese v Hunt (1969)? What defence did the defendant use?

A
  • Claim failed because the strips of metal that caused the power cut were not a dangerous thing, and the use to which the defendant was putting the building was not unnatural
  • The defendant successfully used the argument that there was a benefit to the wider community as the activity provided jobs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What happened in Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co Ltd (1918)? What was held?

A
  • Explosives kept on land were detonated to break up some rocks. Some of the rocks were forced into the air and escaped the defendant’s property, injuring the claimant
  • Defendant held liable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happened in Read v J Lyons & Co (1947)? What was held? Why else is this case important?

A
  • Some explosives detonated in a munitions factory, killing one person and injuring others. There was no evidence of negligence
  • Using the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, it was held that no liability arose because the persons injured were on the premises and there was no escape from the factory
  • Case also important because it was stated that in deciding whether something was being used in a ‘non-natural’ way, all circumstances must be considered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Give a case that concerns non-natural use and likelihood of mischief

A
  • Transco PLC v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2004)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What happened in Transco PLC v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2004)? What was held? Why? What rule was used in deciding this?

A
  • A pipe failed, leading to the escaped water causing an embankment to collapse, leaving a gas main exposed an unsupported. The gas company sued the council for the cost of repairs
  • HELD - the council were not liable
  • The supply of water through the pipes was normal and did not create any special hazard
  • Rylands v Fletcher
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Give a case for non-natural use and foreseeability of harm (R+F)

A
  • Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather PLC (1994)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What happened in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather PLC (1994)? What did the HoL accept? What did they decide the claimant needed to show? Why did the claim fail? What case established this type of foreseeability?

A
  • The solvent used by the defendant slowly soaked through the floor, contaminating the claimant’s borehole
  • HoL accepted that the storage of PCE by the defendants was a non-natural use of land
  • Decided that the claimant had to show that the defendant should have foreseen the contamination
  • Claim failed because of remoteness of damage and the fact that the defendants could not have foreseen the contamination
  • Wagon Mound No.1
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was the dangerous thing in Batchellor v The Tunbridge Wells Gas Company (1901)?

A
  • Gas
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What was the dangerous thing in National Telephone Company v Baker (1893)?

A
  • Electricity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What was the dangerous thing in West v Bristol Tramways (1908)?

A
  • Creosote fumes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What was the dangerous thing in Shiffman v The Order of St Johns (1936)?

A
  • Flagpole
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What was the dangerous thing in Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board?

A
  • Planting a yew tree (poisonous and an unnatural use of land)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Name a case that concerned the escape of something

A
  • Hale v Jennings (1938)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What happened in Hale v Jennings (1938)?

A
  • Chair from an aerial fairground ride broke loose and clonked the claimant on the head, causing injury. This was an escape for the purposes of Rylands v Fletcher
25
Q

What was held about the Rylands v Fletcher rule in Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks Co (1996)? What was held?

A
  • Rylands v Fletcher was held to cover the intentional release of dangerous substances
  • On the facts the defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher
26
Q

What happened in Stannard v Gore (2012)? What was held? Why?

A
  • Pile of tyres on defendant’s land caught fire and the black smoke drifted onto the claimant’s land
  • HELD - no claim under Rylands v Fletcher as it was the smoke that had escaped, not the tyres
27
Q

What are the six possible defences that can be used in a case decided under the Rylands v Fletcher rule?

A
  • Consent
  • Vis Major (Act of God)
  • Act of a Stranger
  • Statutory Authority
  • Contributory Negligence
  • Volenti
28
Q

When will volenti offer a defence in R v F? Example?

A
  • When the activity, and the substances stored on the defendant’s land were consented to and confer a ‘common benefit’
  • Water tanks and pipes in a block of flats
29
Q

When will contributory negligence offer a defence in R v F? (2) Example case?

A
  • If it was the claimant who actually caused the escape of the dangerous thing
  • If the damage caused is due to the sensitivity of the claimant’s land/property
  • Eastern and South African Telegraph Co (1902) - regarding the minor escape of electricity
30
Q

Give a case where statutory authority offered a defence in Rylands v Fletcher

A
  • Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894)
31
Q

What was held in Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894)?

A
  • Damage caused by water pipes did not give rise to a claim as the defendant had a statutory duty to provide water. There was a greater public good and the court decided that the occasional leak was a small price to pay
32
Q

What must there be for a defence of statutory authority under R v F to succeed? Give a case that illustrates this. What happened?

A
  • An obligation and not a discretion to provide the service complained of
  • Charing Cross Electric v Hydraulic Company (1914)
  • Defendant couldn’t use statutory authority as a defence as the relevant act only gave them a power and did not impose a duty to provide water
33
Q

Give a case where the act of a stranger offered a defence under R v F

A
  • Box v Jubb (1879)
34
Q

What was held in Box v Jubb (1879)?

A
  • Defendants not liable for damage caused by the flooding of their reservoir which was itself caused by the flooding of someone else’s
35
Q

When will the defence of an act of a stranger not work in R v F?

A
  • If the act was something that the defendant should have reasonably foreseen, and taken steps to prevent
36
Q

Give a case where an Act of God offered a defence under R v F

A
  • Nichols v Marsland (1876)
37
Q

Give a case where the event did not qualify as an act of God

A
  • Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railways Corporation (1917)
38
Q

What happened in Nichols v Marsland (1876) What was crucial?

A
  • The storm that caused the flooding of the claimant’s property was genuinely a once in a lifetime even that the defendant could not have foreseen
  • Crucially, the construction of the pools was not negligent, which helped the defence work
39
Q

What happened in Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway Corporation (1917)? What was held?

A
  • There was a storm of enormous magnitude which HoL decided did not qualify as an act of God. It depends on the storm, but construction will play a part in the decision
  • No defence so liable
40
Q

Describe the relationship between RvF and other areas of tort. What does Rylands need that Private Nuisance doesn’t? What about the duty of care? However?

A
  • For R v F there needs to be accumulation and the fact that the substance will cause damage if it escapes - and there is the issue of ‘non-natural’ use of land. None of these things are required for an ordinary private nuisance claim, apart from the need for physical damage to property
  • In negligence, the duty of care is relevant. It is less so in R v F
  • However, when the defences of Act of God, act of a stranger or common benefit are used, it does become relevant
41
Q

What do you need for a successful claim under the tort of nuisance? (3)

A
  • Interference with someone’s enjoyment of land
  • That the interference was unreasonable
  • That the interference resulted in physical damage
42
Q

In nuisance, what four things does whether or not the interference was unreasonable depend on?

A
  • Locality
  • Sensitivity
  • Duration
  • Malice
43
Q

What five things do you need to succeed in a claim under R v F?

A
  • Defendant must control the land that the nuisance came from
  • There must be an accumulation of something that could be dangerous (as in likely to cause damage if it escapes)
  • The use of the land must be unnatural
  • The dangerous thing must have escaped
  • The damage must be physical and relate directly to the escape of the dangerous material
44
Q

Do you need to intend or be reckless as to the consequences of your material escaping onto adjoining land? (2)

A
  • It used to be the case that liability was strict
  • Where the defences of Act of God, statutory authority or common benefit are used, the courts will see whether recklessness is present in the defendant’s actions and whether they could have done more to avoid the damage occurring
45
Q

What’s the difference in terms of damage, between R v F and private nuisance?

A
  • To succeed under Rylands, the damage must be indirect whereas it can be direct in private nuisance
46
Q

Was Rylands always a common kind of negligence to appear before the courts?

A
  • No, it used to be rare
47
Q

What did people used to use as an alternative to R v F? Why?

A
  • Private nuisance

- It was easier because of the tests for damage and unreasonableness

48
Q

What case revived R v F? What hope did this inspire? Did this happen? What did the Law Commission recommend? Did it do this?

A
  • Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather PLC (1994)
  • The hope that it would become a useful took in fighting environmental pollution
  • Hasn’t really happened
  • Law Commission recommended that Parliament provide statutory guidance for these matters
  • It did to a certain extent indirectly in delegated legislation, but no primary legislation came into force
49
Q

What is the problem with using Rylands?

A
  • People only get compensated for the damage to property. Death and personal injury would have to be addressed through private nuisance
50
Q

Are Rylands cases common?

A
  • No, but they have not completely disappeared
51
Q

Why is strict liability good in terms of R v F? (3)

A
  • Using Rylands requires lawyers to understand the nature of collecting and keeping something and to recognise the risk of damage if it escapes
  • Because this can result in serious property damage/harm, strict liability is arguably necessary to maintain health and safety
  • The later development of some level of intention would surely reduce the effectiveness of a Rylands action as a deterrent
52
Q

What is the issue with the concept of an ‘unnatural’ use of land? (2)

A
  • Vague concept

- Rickards v Lothian, Read v Lyon and Transco provide inconsistent direction on the issue

53
Q

What’s the issue with the concept ‘likely to do mischief’?

A
  • Vague. What degree of risk are we talking about?
54
Q

What’s the issue with the defences to R v F?

A
  • They vary from case to case and require greater clarity in terms of judicial discretion
55
Q

Describe the argument that R v F is unnecessary

A
  • There are other tort principles to invoke and one can fall back on private nuisance
56
Q

How would the time in which R v F was established have affected it?

A
  • The rule was decided at a time when there was growing public concern over bursting reservoir dams which were damaging property
57
Q

Does Australia follow R v F? Since when?

A
  • No

- Since Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994)

58
Q

Does Scotland follow R v F? Since when?

A
  • No

- Since RHM Bakeries Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council (1985)

59
Q

What is happening to R v F?

A
  • In English and Welsh law it is increasingly being seen as apart of the tort of nuisance rather than a separate tort itself

Law (45 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions