RYLANDS V FLETCHER Negligence
R v F was a law created through common law, it started from a case. It is a strict Negligence is described in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks as the ‘omission to do somet
liability which concerns the escape of non-natural things which was bought would not do’. To prove negligence, you must prove three elements.
TORT LAW OVERVIEW: onto land then causes foreseeable damage. To prove R v F you need to prove
four elements:
1. There was a Duty of Care owed,
The DoC test is set out in Caparo v Dickman, previously neighbour principle form Donog
1. Bought something onto land approach states that for a DoC there must:
• Was something bought onto the land? (Giles v Walker) • Foreseeable damage (Kent v Griffiths)
2. Non-natural use of land • Sufficient proximity between C and D
• Was the thing bought onto the land a non-natural material. You • Time and space (Bournhill v Young/Mcloughin v O-Brien)
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1957 must consider the area For example, having oil in an industrial • Or relationship (Alcock)
Applies to: Lawful Visitors Only area is natural, but having that oil in fields is not natural. • Fair just and reasonable to impose a DoC
General Principles to Define: (Rickards v Lothian) • Should they owe a DoC for the actions taken? (Robinson v CC W
• s.2 OLA 57: ‘An occupier owes a DoC to those lawful visitors’ 3. Thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes 2. The Duty of Care was breached
• Occupier: ‘Degree of control over premises’ Wheat v E. Lancon and Co • If it escapes, would it cause mischief/damage. (Hale v Jennings For a breach we must determine what the ‘reasonable person’ is for this case and the fact
• s.1(3) OLA 57: premises ‘any fixed or moveable structure’ Bro) decide the level of care expected.
• Lawful visitor 4. Thing stored escapes and causes foreseeable damage I. Reasonable person factors
• Express permission: invited in, bought a ticket • Did it cause foreseeable damage, you do not need to foresee • Age (Mullin v Richards)
• Implied permission: police, salespeople, postal workers the escape. (Stannard (Wyvern Tyres) v Gore) • Apprentice/learner (Nettleship v Weston)
• Level of Duty of Care Owed Potential Defences to R v F • Expertise (Bolam v Frien Barnet Hospital)
• Reasonable precautions taken : Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway • Volenti non fit injura (consent): Peters v Prince Wales Theatre II. Standard of Care Factors
• Everyday don’t make O liable: Rochester Cathedral v Debell 2016 • Act of Stranger: if stranger caused, D not liable (Perry v Kendricks • Degree of Risk = Higher SoC (Bolton v Stone)
• 2(3(a) ‘O must be prepared for children to be less careful’ Transport) • Special characteristics of C (Paris v Stepney BC)
• Children and Supervision • Act of God: unforeseen weather does not make D liable (Nichols v • Precautions taken (Latimer v AEC)
• Children should be under supervision, so courts are unwilling to Marsland) • Benefit in taking risk (Watts v Herts County Council)
find the O liable (Phillips v Rochester Corporation 1955) • Statutory Authority: if Parliament authorises D actions don’t make D liable 3. The breach caused damage
• Trades Person (Green v Chelsea Waterworks) You must also prove factual causation (but for) and the damage was not too remote (remo
• An O might be able to pass over the liability to a trade's person carrying out • Contributory Negligence: the C plays a part in the damage ‘precise chain of events from the breach to the damage not need be foreseeable’ Hughes
the work if they can prove the O took reasonable steps (Roles v Nathan). • Factual Causation: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
They must prove • Remoteness (cannot be too remote): The Wagon Mound
• Reasonable to entrust (Haseldine v Daw & Sons Ltd)
• Reputable tradesperson (Botomley v Todmordern CC)
Vicarious liability Potential Issues
• Break in chain: Knightly v Johns
VL is when a tort is committed by someone and then imposing liability onto
• The O checked the work done (Woodward v Mayor of Hastings) • Injury worse than foreseen does not matter: Bradford v Robinson Rentals
someone else. To prove this you must prove the elements of the Salmond Test:
• Not foreseeable damage can remove liability: Doughty v Turner Asbestos
1. Was the person who committed the tort employed by the D?
• C has health condition/refuses treatment don’t matter: Thin Eggshell Skull Rule (S
To decide this you can use multiple tests:
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1984 • Control test: does the E have control over the work and position?
Applies to: Trespassers Only (Hawley v Luminar Leisure) Private Nuisance
General Principles to Define: • Organisational test: if course business most likely employee General Principles to Define: (Defined as: the unlawful indirect interference with a person
• s.2 OLA 57: ‘An occupier owes a DoC to those lawful visitors’ • Economic reality test: consider other factors such as own tools, • Who can make a claim: anyone with an interest in the land (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
• Occupier: ‘Degree of control over premises’ Wheat v E. Lancon and Co payroll (Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and NI) • It will be launched against the person making the nuisance (Leaky v National Trust)
• s.1(3) OLA 57: premises ‘any fixed or moveable structure’ 2. Was the tort committed in the course of the employment? To prove PN the C must prove:
Who is a Trespasser Acts can make them during employment or outside the course of employment 1. Unlawful indirect interference of land
• Someone who hasn’t got express or implied permission to enter I. In the course of employment • Fire, noise, fumes: must be indirect
• Going beyond permission will make you a trespasser: The Carlgrath • ‘acting against orders’ Limpus v London General 2. Damage to the C
‘you invite someone into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite them to slide • ‘being negligent’ Century Insurance v N.I. Road Transport Board • Discomfort or inconvenience (Laws v Florinplace)
down the banisters’ II. Outside the course of employment 3. Interference was unreasonable
O owes a DoC to trespasser if: • Beyond duties ‘frolic of their own’ Beard v London General • ‘Beyond the bounds or normal conduct’, and caselaw also helps define what is/isn’t:
1. Aware of the risk Omnibus Co • Locality (Sturges v Bridgeman)
2. Knows or believes the T will come into the vicinity of it • Doing something unauthorised Twine v Beans Express • Duration (Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks)
3. Reasonable to impose some degree of protection Potential issue • Sensitivity (Network Rail v Morris)
Potential Defences for O: • Criminal Act: Will only be liable if the D was put into the position to commit • Malice (Hollywood Silver Fox Farms v Emmett)
• Don’t need to warn against obvious dangers: Ratcliff v Mcconell the criminal act Lister v Hesley Hall • Social benefit (Miller v Jackson)
• Time of day can be relevant: Donoghue v Folkstone Updated Approach (Established in Lister v Hesley Hall) Potential Defences
• Didn’t know danger existed: Rhind v Astbury Water Park 1. Must be a relationship akin to employment • Prescription, (Sturges v Bridgeman) / Moving to nuisance (never succeeded) / Parliam
• Didn’t suspect a trespasser: Higgs v Foster 2. Must be close and sufficient proximity Thames Water) / Planning Permission (Wheeler v Saunders)
R v F was a law created through common law, it started from a case. It is a strict Negligence is described in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks as the ‘omission to do somet
liability which concerns the escape of non-natural things which was bought would not do’. To prove negligence, you must prove three elements.
TORT LAW OVERVIEW: onto land then causes foreseeable damage. To prove R v F you need to prove
four elements:
1. There was a Duty of Care owed,
The DoC test is set out in Caparo v Dickman, previously neighbour principle form Donog
1. Bought something onto land approach states that for a DoC there must:
• Was something bought onto the land? (Giles v Walker) • Foreseeable damage (Kent v Griffiths)
2. Non-natural use of land • Sufficient proximity between C and D
• Was the thing bought onto the land a non-natural material. You • Time and space (Bournhill v Young/Mcloughin v O-Brien)
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1957 must consider the area For example, having oil in an industrial • Or relationship (Alcock)
Applies to: Lawful Visitors Only area is natural, but having that oil in fields is not natural. • Fair just and reasonable to impose a DoC
General Principles to Define: (Rickards v Lothian) • Should they owe a DoC for the actions taken? (Robinson v CC W
• s.2 OLA 57: ‘An occupier owes a DoC to those lawful visitors’ 3. Thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes 2. The Duty of Care was breached
• Occupier: ‘Degree of control over premises’ Wheat v E. Lancon and Co • If it escapes, would it cause mischief/damage. (Hale v Jennings For a breach we must determine what the ‘reasonable person’ is for this case and the fact
• s.1(3) OLA 57: premises ‘any fixed or moveable structure’ Bro) decide the level of care expected.
• Lawful visitor 4. Thing stored escapes and causes foreseeable damage I. Reasonable person factors
• Express permission: invited in, bought a ticket • Did it cause foreseeable damage, you do not need to foresee • Age (Mullin v Richards)
• Implied permission: police, salespeople, postal workers the escape. (Stannard (Wyvern Tyres) v Gore) • Apprentice/learner (Nettleship v Weston)
• Level of Duty of Care Owed Potential Defences to R v F • Expertise (Bolam v Frien Barnet Hospital)
• Reasonable precautions taken : Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway • Volenti non fit injura (consent): Peters v Prince Wales Theatre II. Standard of Care Factors
• Everyday don’t make O liable: Rochester Cathedral v Debell 2016 • Act of Stranger: if stranger caused, D not liable (Perry v Kendricks • Degree of Risk = Higher SoC (Bolton v Stone)
• 2(3(a) ‘O must be prepared for children to be less careful’ Transport) • Special characteristics of C (Paris v Stepney BC)
• Children and Supervision • Act of God: unforeseen weather does not make D liable (Nichols v • Precautions taken (Latimer v AEC)
• Children should be under supervision, so courts are unwilling to Marsland) • Benefit in taking risk (Watts v Herts County Council)
find the O liable (Phillips v Rochester Corporation 1955) • Statutory Authority: if Parliament authorises D actions don’t make D liable 3. The breach caused damage
• Trades Person (Green v Chelsea Waterworks) You must also prove factual causation (but for) and the damage was not too remote (remo
• An O might be able to pass over the liability to a trade's person carrying out • Contributory Negligence: the C plays a part in the damage ‘precise chain of events from the breach to the damage not need be foreseeable’ Hughes
the work if they can prove the O took reasonable steps (Roles v Nathan). • Factual Causation: Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
They must prove • Remoteness (cannot be too remote): The Wagon Mound
• Reasonable to entrust (Haseldine v Daw & Sons Ltd)
• Reputable tradesperson (Botomley v Todmordern CC)
Vicarious liability Potential Issues
• Break in chain: Knightly v Johns
VL is when a tort is committed by someone and then imposing liability onto
• The O checked the work done (Woodward v Mayor of Hastings) • Injury worse than foreseen does not matter: Bradford v Robinson Rentals
someone else. To prove this you must prove the elements of the Salmond Test:
• Not foreseeable damage can remove liability: Doughty v Turner Asbestos
1. Was the person who committed the tort employed by the D?
• C has health condition/refuses treatment don’t matter: Thin Eggshell Skull Rule (S
To decide this you can use multiple tests:
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT 1984 • Control test: does the E have control over the work and position?
Applies to: Trespassers Only (Hawley v Luminar Leisure) Private Nuisance
General Principles to Define: • Organisational test: if course business most likely employee General Principles to Define: (Defined as: the unlawful indirect interference with a person
• s.2 OLA 57: ‘An occupier owes a DoC to those lawful visitors’ • Economic reality test: consider other factors such as own tools, • Who can make a claim: anyone with an interest in the land (Hunter v Canary Wharf)
• Occupier: ‘Degree of control over premises’ Wheat v E. Lancon and Co payroll (Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and NI) • It will be launched against the person making the nuisance (Leaky v National Trust)
• s.1(3) OLA 57: premises ‘any fixed or moveable structure’ 2. Was the tort committed in the course of the employment? To prove PN the C must prove:
Who is a Trespasser Acts can make them during employment or outside the course of employment 1. Unlawful indirect interference of land
• Someone who hasn’t got express or implied permission to enter I. In the course of employment • Fire, noise, fumes: must be indirect
• Going beyond permission will make you a trespasser: The Carlgrath • ‘acting against orders’ Limpus v London General 2. Damage to the C
‘you invite someone into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite them to slide • ‘being negligent’ Century Insurance v N.I. Road Transport Board • Discomfort or inconvenience (Laws v Florinplace)
down the banisters’ II. Outside the course of employment 3. Interference was unreasonable
O owes a DoC to trespasser if: • Beyond duties ‘frolic of their own’ Beard v London General • ‘Beyond the bounds or normal conduct’, and caselaw also helps define what is/isn’t:
1. Aware of the risk Omnibus Co • Locality (Sturges v Bridgeman)
2. Knows or believes the T will come into the vicinity of it • Doing something unauthorised Twine v Beans Express • Duration (Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks)
3. Reasonable to impose some degree of protection Potential issue • Sensitivity (Network Rail v Morris)
Potential Defences for O: • Criminal Act: Will only be liable if the D was put into the position to commit • Malice (Hollywood Silver Fox Farms v Emmett)
• Don’t need to warn against obvious dangers: Ratcliff v Mcconell the criminal act Lister v Hesley Hall • Social benefit (Miller v Jackson)
• Time of day can be relevant: Donoghue v Folkstone Updated Approach (Established in Lister v Hesley Hall) Potential Defences
• Didn’t know danger existed: Rhind v Astbury Water Park 1. Must be a relationship akin to employment • Prescription, (Sturges v Bridgeman) / Moving to nuisance (never succeeded) / Parliam
• Didn’t suspect a trespasser: Higgs v Foster 2. Must be close and sufficient proximity Thames Water) / Planning Permission (Wheeler v Saunders)
