Rylands v Fletcher
- Strict Liability Offence – no fault attributed to defendant,
- Must be an interest in the land – Hunter v Canary Wharf,
- Lord Cranworth in Rylands v Fletcher:
“If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it
should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his
peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however
careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken
to prevent the damage.”
Requirements
Defences:-
1. Act of a Stranger/Third Party (Perry v
Kendricks Transport Ltd)
2. Act of God (Carstairs v Taylor)
1. Accumulation 3. Escape 4. Non-Natural use of land
2. Thing likely to do
3. Statutory Authority (Green v Chelsea
- D must bring a hazardous mischief if it escapes - Must be an escape (Read v - Lord Bingham in Transco v
Waterworks Co.)
thing onto land (Ellison v Lyons) Stockport MBC stated that the
- Need not be inherently use of land must be
MOD), 4. Consent/Benefit (Peters v Prince of
dangerous. (Shiffman v “extraordinary and unusual”. Wales Theatre)
- Accumulated for D’s purpose The Grand Priory of St
(Dunne v North West Gas John) - This is subjective to the
Board), location.
- Thing that escapes need not
be thing accumulated (Miles v
Forest Rock Granite).
5. Remoteness of damage
Damage must not be too remote. (Cambridge Waters v
Eastern Counties Leather)
Not claimable for PEL (Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease)
- Strict Liability Offence – no fault attributed to defendant,
- Must be an interest in the land – Hunter v Canary Wharf,
- Lord Cranworth in Rylands v Fletcher:
“If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it
should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his
peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however
careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken
to prevent the damage.”
Requirements
Defences:-
1. Act of a Stranger/Third Party (Perry v
Kendricks Transport Ltd)
2. Act of God (Carstairs v Taylor)
1. Accumulation 3. Escape 4. Non-Natural use of land
2. Thing likely to do
3. Statutory Authority (Green v Chelsea
- D must bring a hazardous mischief if it escapes - Must be an escape (Read v - Lord Bingham in Transco v
Waterworks Co.)
thing onto land (Ellison v Lyons) Stockport MBC stated that the
- Need not be inherently use of land must be
MOD), 4. Consent/Benefit (Peters v Prince of
dangerous. (Shiffman v “extraordinary and unusual”. Wales Theatre)
- Accumulated for D’s purpose The Grand Priory of St
(Dunne v North West Gas John) - This is subjective to the
Board), location.
- Thing that escapes need not
be thing accumulated (Miles v
Forest Rock Granite).
5. Remoteness of damage
Damage must not be too remote. (Cambridge Waters v
Eastern Counties Leather)
Not claimable for PEL (Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease)
