Rylands v Fletcher
• A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes:
• The thing need not be inherently hazardous. It need only be a thing likely to cause
• Tort in its own right. damage if it escapes, for example:
• A flagpole – Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John (1936)
• Form of strict liability – defendant may be liable •
•
Branches from yew trees – Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board (1879)
A fairground ride – Hale v Jennings Bros (1938)
without being negligent. • Electricity – Hiller v Air Ministry (1962)
• However in Transco v Stockport (2004) – damages for personal injuries are not
• Consequently, it is controversial and therefore recoverable under this rule.
restrictive approach has been taken to imposing • Escape:
liability under Ryland v Fletcher. • There must be an escape from the defendant’s land. An injury inflicted by the
accumulation of a hazardous substance on the land itself will not invoke liability. A key
• Case details for Ryland v Fletcher (1868): case on escape is Read v Lyons (1947).
• In British Celansese v AH Hunt (1969), the judge said the escape should be ‘from a set of
• Def built a reservoir on his land, above a disused mine. circumstances over which the defendant has control to set of circumstances where he
Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused does not.’
mine shafts and spread to a neighbouring working mine • Non-Natural use of land:
owned by the claimant, causing extensive damage. • This means the use must be ‘extraordinary and unusual’. A use may be extra-ordinary
and unusual at one time or in one place, but not so at another place.
• Requirements to bring a claim: • A key case for this Transco v Stockport MBC (2004)
• Accumulation on the defendant’s land • Remoteness of damage:
• A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes • As in nuisance. Liability is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage – Cambridge
Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994).
• Escape
• Non-natural use of the land • There is no liability for pure economic loss under Rylands v Fletcher – Weller c
• Damage that is not too remote. Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966)
• Defences:
• Accumulation: • Act of a stranger: D has complete defence if the escape was caused by the act of a
• Def must bring a hazardous thing onto their land stranger over which D had no control and whose actions could not have been
reasonably foreseen – Perry v Kendricks Transport Limited (1956) in contract with Ribee
and keep it there – Giles v Walker (1890); Ellison v v Norrie (2000)
Ministry of Defence (1997) • Act of God: This has the same meaning as under private nuisance, but there is a
• Thing must be accumulated for the defendant’s own different case example – Carstairs v Taylor (1871)
• Statutory Authority: This has the same meaning as under private nuisance, but there is a
purposes – Dunne v North West Gas Board (1964) different case example – Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co. (1894)
• The thing that escapes need not be the thing • Consent/benefit: If C receives a benefit from the thing accumulated, they may be
accumulated – Miles v Forest Rock Granite (1918) deemed to have consented to its accumulation – Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
(1943).
• A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes:
• The thing need not be inherently hazardous. It need only be a thing likely to cause
• Tort in its own right. damage if it escapes, for example:
• A flagpole – Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John (1936)
• Form of strict liability – defendant may be liable •
•
Branches from yew trees – Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board (1879)
A fairground ride – Hale v Jennings Bros (1938)
without being negligent. • Electricity – Hiller v Air Ministry (1962)
• However in Transco v Stockport (2004) – damages for personal injuries are not
• Consequently, it is controversial and therefore recoverable under this rule.
restrictive approach has been taken to imposing • Escape:
liability under Ryland v Fletcher. • There must be an escape from the defendant’s land. An injury inflicted by the
accumulation of a hazardous substance on the land itself will not invoke liability. A key
• Case details for Ryland v Fletcher (1868): case on escape is Read v Lyons (1947).
• In British Celansese v AH Hunt (1969), the judge said the escape should be ‘from a set of
• Def built a reservoir on his land, above a disused mine. circumstances over which the defendant has control to set of circumstances where he
Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused does not.’
mine shafts and spread to a neighbouring working mine • Non-Natural use of land:
owned by the claimant, causing extensive damage. • This means the use must be ‘extraordinary and unusual’. A use may be extra-ordinary
and unusual at one time or in one place, but not so at another place.
• Requirements to bring a claim: • A key case for this Transco v Stockport MBC (2004)
• Accumulation on the defendant’s land • Remoteness of damage:
• A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes • As in nuisance. Liability is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage – Cambridge
Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994).
• Escape
• Non-natural use of the land • There is no liability for pure economic loss under Rylands v Fletcher – Weller c
• Damage that is not too remote. Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966)
• Defences:
• Accumulation: • Act of a stranger: D has complete defence if the escape was caused by the act of a
• Def must bring a hazardous thing onto their land stranger over which D had no control and whose actions could not have been
reasonably foreseen – Perry v Kendricks Transport Limited (1956) in contract with Ribee
and keep it there – Giles v Walker (1890); Ellison v v Norrie (2000)
Ministry of Defence (1997) • Act of God: This has the same meaning as under private nuisance, but there is a
• Thing must be accumulated for the defendant’s own different case example – Carstairs v Taylor (1871)
• Statutory Authority: This has the same meaning as under private nuisance, but there is a
purposes – Dunne v North West Gas Board (1964) different case example – Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co. (1894)
• The thing that escapes need not be the thing • Consent/benefit: If C receives a benefit from the thing accumulated, they may be
accumulated – Miles v Forest Rock Granite (1918) deemed to have consented to its accumulation – Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre
(1943).
