Rylands v Fletcher – very specific. Has to: Who can sue who?
1. Dangerous C must have an interest in land – Cambridge Water Co.
2. Bought onto the land For what damage?
3. Escaped 1. Not personal injury.
4. Damaged 2. Damages
Facts – built a dam, lot of water – knew of mines and didn’t do anything. 3. Injunction – one off events.
Water flooded
Strict Liability? ‘knowledge/foreseeability of risk is clear to
1. Bought onto his land. recover damages under principles. Principle is one of strict
Not enough for dangerous thing to be naturally present it must have liability, D may be held liable not withstanding that he has
been bought onto the land – Giles v Walker excericsed all reasonable care to prevent the escape happening”
No liability without fault.
2. anything likely to do mischief. No strict liability – had a duty and didn’t do enough to protect
Courts look at facts – NO RULES. E.g ‘ dangerous thing’ from damage.
Explosives – Miles v Forest Rock and Granite Co.
Oil – Smith v Great Western Railway.
3. escapes – means ‘from a place where the D has occupation/control over land to a place Future of RYLAND V FLETCHER - sub-species of
which is outside his occupation/control’ nuisance.
Read v Lyons – military factory inspection – leaving premises – explosion – injured in Itself is a tort based on interference with land.
process of leaving. Hadn’t left premises – NO ESCAPE.
4. ‘non-natural’ use: seems reasonable & just that neighbor who has bought something
onto his own property. ‘not naturally there’ NOT SUFFICIENT. – non-natural use.
Cambridge – mass storage of chemicals = non-natural use.
‘only where D’s use is shown to be extraordinary and unusual’ Transco PLC V Stockport
Met BC.
1. Dangerous C must have an interest in land – Cambridge Water Co.
2. Bought onto the land For what damage?
3. Escaped 1. Not personal injury.
4. Damaged 2. Damages
Facts – built a dam, lot of water – knew of mines and didn’t do anything. 3. Injunction – one off events.
Water flooded
Strict Liability? ‘knowledge/foreseeability of risk is clear to
1. Bought onto his land. recover damages under principles. Principle is one of strict
Not enough for dangerous thing to be naturally present it must have liability, D may be held liable not withstanding that he has
been bought onto the land – Giles v Walker excericsed all reasonable care to prevent the escape happening”
No liability without fault.
2. anything likely to do mischief. No strict liability – had a duty and didn’t do enough to protect
Courts look at facts – NO RULES. E.g ‘ dangerous thing’ from damage.
Explosives – Miles v Forest Rock and Granite Co.
Oil – Smith v Great Western Railway.
3. escapes – means ‘from a place where the D has occupation/control over land to a place Future of RYLAND V FLETCHER - sub-species of
which is outside his occupation/control’ nuisance.
Read v Lyons – military factory inspection – leaving premises – explosion – injured in Itself is a tort based on interference with land.
process of leaving. Hadn’t left premises – NO ESCAPE.
4. ‘non-natural’ use: seems reasonable & just that neighbor who has bought something
onto his own property. ‘not naturally there’ NOT SUFFICIENT. – non-natural use.
Cambridge – mass storage of chemicals = non-natural use.
‘only where D’s use is shown to be extraordinary and unusual’ Transco PLC V Stockport
Met BC.
