CASES Rylands v Fletcher
Rylands v Fletcher- Water from reservoir escaped the defendants land flooding and damaging the
claimants land mine, protects against an isolated escape rather than an ongoing interference
Hunter v Canary Wharf- who can sue (legal proprietary interest, owner/ tenant, in the land
a<ected by escape)
Read v Lyons- who can be sued (owner/ occupier who accumulates/ owns thing that escapes)
Key elements to prove:
1. Accumulation of a non-natural thing
Giles v Walker – D thistle in garden seeds blew garden damaging crops neighbour, thistle naturally
occurring so not liable
Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather- D used chemicals in the process manufacturing
leather, chemicals contaminated C’s water supply, unsuccessful but regarded non natural use land
especially stored in large quantities
2. The thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes
Hale v Jennings Bros – fairground ride chair flew o< (escaped) hit someone, foreseeable likely to
cause mischief
3. The thing stored must escape
Read v Lyons – D ran ammunition company a bullet exploded when an inspector came, bullet
didn’t escape D’s property so failed
Gore v Stannard – fire started at D’s premises igniting tyres, fire damaged C’s property, the fire
escaped not the tyres non-naturally accumulated tyres did not so claim failed
4. The thing that escapes causes foreseeable damage
Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather – not liable as the storage facility over a mile away
so not reasonably foreseeable
Defences
Rickards v Lothian – act of a stranger (someone left tap running)
Nichols v Marsland – act of God (built artificial lakes on land, thunderstorm caused flood/escape)
No case - Statutory authority
Remedies
Transco v Stockport – cannot claim for death or personal injury under Rylands v Fletcher
Rylands v Fletcher- Water from reservoir escaped the defendants land flooding and damaging the
claimants land mine, protects against an isolated escape rather than an ongoing interference
Hunter v Canary Wharf- who can sue (legal proprietary interest, owner/ tenant, in the land
a<ected by escape)
Read v Lyons- who can be sued (owner/ occupier who accumulates/ owns thing that escapes)
Key elements to prove:
1. Accumulation of a non-natural thing
Giles v Walker – D thistle in garden seeds blew garden damaging crops neighbour, thistle naturally
occurring so not liable
Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather- D used chemicals in the process manufacturing
leather, chemicals contaminated C’s water supply, unsuccessful but regarded non natural use land
especially stored in large quantities
2. The thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes
Hale v Jennings Bros – fairground ride chair flew o< (escaped) hit someone, foreseeable likely to
cause mischief
3. The thing stored must escape
Read v Lyons – D ran ammunition company a bullet exploded when an inspector came, bullet
didn’t escape D’s property so failed
Gore v Stannard – fire started at D’s premises igniting tyres, fire damaged C’s property, the fire
escaped not the tyres non-naturally accumulated tyres did not so claim failed
4. The thing that escapes causes foreseeable damage
Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather – not liable as the storage facility over a mile away
so not reasonably foreseeable
Defences
Rickards v Lothian – act of a stranger (someone left tap running)
Nichols v Marsland – act of God (built artificial lakes on land, thunderstorm caused flood/escape)
No case - Statutory authority
Remedies
Transco v Stockport – cannot claim for death or personal injury under Rylands v Fletcher
