Rylands v Fletcher Flowchart
This is a subcategory of private nuisance. To bring an action under RvF there are strict
criteria, leading to ‘strict liability’ however the law has developed to the contrary of this.
(1) The Defendant brings something onto his land that is likely to do mischief
This has strict and exacting application due to Transco PLC v Stockport: the claimant can
only claim if an exceptional high risk arose if the accumulation of substance occurs should it
escape. If there is a low risk, then you are not in the realms of RvF.
- In this case, the accumulation was accumulation of water from a leaked pipe. This
was held not to be sufficient.
-
This case means that previous case law is not as relevant as they were not held to this
standard, however, examples include:
- Collection of water in large volumes – Rylands [1865]
- Electricity - National Telephone Co v Barker [1893]
- Gas - Batchellor v Tunbridge Wells Cas Go [1901]
- Noxious fumes – West v Bristol Tramways Co [1908]
- Part of a fairground ride – Hale v Jennings [1938]
- Flammable vapour cloud caused by petrol spillage - Colour Quest [2010]
- Held not to apply: cricket ball (Bolton v Stone)
Courts have started to restrict the scope of liability. Do any of the examples reach the
threshold now imposed by Transco?
(2) There is an escape of that thing from the defendant’s land/control
The defendant will only be liable where a dangerous thing brought on to the land escapes
from his or her control.
Read v Lyons: if the danger does not leave the land, but is contained within the land of the
defendant then there is no claim as there is no escape (in this case an explosion). If the
defendant was a foot outside of the grounds then a claim could have been brought – very
arbitrary.
Transco: If the dangerous thing moves from one part of the defendants land to another,
then there is no liability.
Stannard v Gore: the item brought on to the land must escape, not another danger. Here
tyres were brought on to the land and they caught fire, the fire escaped but the tyres did
not, so no claim.
Flemming: is this an artificial restraint on the tort?
This is a subcategory of private nuisance. To bring an action under RvF there are strict
criteria, leading to ‘strict liability’ however the law has developed to the contrary of this.
(1) The Defendant brings something onto his land that is likely to do mischief
This has strict and exacting application due to Transco PLC v Stockport: the claimant can
only claim if an exceptional high risk arose if the accumulation of substance occurs should it
escape. If there is a low risk, then you are not in the realms of RvF.
- In this case, the accumulation was accumulation of water from a leaked pipe. This
was held not to be sufficient.
-
This case means that previous case law is not as relevant as they were not held to this
standard, however, examples include:
- Collection of water in large volumes – Rylands [1865]
- Electricity - National Telephone Co v Barker [1893]
- Gas - Batchellor v Tunbridge Wells Cas Go [1901]
- Noxious fumes – West v Bristol Tramways Co [1908]
- Part of a fairground ride – Hale v Jennings [1938]
- Flammable vapour cloud caused by petrol spillage - Colour Quest [2010]
- Held not to apply: cricket ball (Bolton v Stone)
Courts have started to restrict the scope of liability. Do any of the examples reach the
threshold now imposed by Transco?
(2) There is an escape of that thing from the defendant’s land/control
The defendant will only be liable where a dangerous thing brought on to the land escapes
from his or her control.
Read v Lyons: if the danger does not leave the land, but is contained within the land of the
defendant then there is no claim as there is no escape (in this case an explosion). If the
defendant was a foot outside of the grounds then a claim could have been brought – very
arbitrary.
Transco: If the dangerous thing moves from one part of the defendants land to another,
then there is no liability.
Stannard v Gore: the item brought on to the land must escape, not another danger. Here
tyres were brought on to the land and they caught fire, the fire escaped but the tyres did
not, so no claim.
Flemming: is this an artificial restraint on the tort?
