9084 · 4.2.3
Rylands v Fletcher flashcards
Revision flashcards for Cambridge 9084 Rylands v Fletcher (syllabus 4.2.3). Flip, recall, then mark a real past-paper question.
Card
Rylands v Fletcher rule?
Person who for own purposes brings on land and collects/stores anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, and it escapes, is liable for damage — even without negligence.
Card
What are the four essential elements of the tort in Rylands v Fletcher?
1. The defendant brings something onto his land and accumulates it. 2. The thing is likely to do mischief if it escapes. 3. The use of the land is 'non-natural'. 4. The thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage.
Card
What is the modern test for 'non-natural use' of land?
Following the House of Lords' decision in Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003), the use must be 'extraordinary and unusual' considering the time and place.
Card
What is the legal definition of an 'escape' for the purpose of this tort?
An escape occurs when the substance or thing moves from land under the defendant's control to land that is outside of their control. This was established in Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd.
Card
How did the case of Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994) affect the rule?
It established that the damage caused by the escape must be of a type that was reasonably foreseeable. This introduced a foreseeability requirement for the remoteness of damage, making the tort less strict.
Card
Who can sue under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
The claimant must have a proprietary interest in the land affected by the escape (e.g., owner or tenant). This was confirmed in Transco plc v Stockport MBC, aligning it with the rule in private nuisance from Hunter v Canary Wharf.
Card
What types of damage are recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher?
Primarily damage to land and property. Following Transco plc v Stockport MBC, claims for personal injury are not recoverable under this tort and should be brought in negligence.
Card
What are the main defences to a Rylands v Fletcher claim?
Consent of the claimant (volenti); default of the claimant/contributory negligence; Act of a Stranger; Act of God; Statutory Authority.
Card
What is the 'Act of a Stranger' defence?
A defence where the escape was caused by the unforeseeable act of a third party over whom the defendant had no control. For example, a trespasser deliberately causing a leak, as seen in Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd.
Card
How did Transco plc v Stockport MBC change the Rylands v Fletcher rule?
It significantly narrowed the rule, confirming the 'non-natural use' test is 'extraordinary and unusual', stating the rule is a 'sub-species of nuisance', and confirming personal injury is not recoverable.
Card
What is the 'Act of God' defence?
A defence for an escape caused by an extreme and unforeseeable natural event that no human foresight could provide against. It is very rarely successful, as seen in Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway.
Card
Rylands vs negligence?
Rylands is strict liability once elements proved — no need to show breach of reasonable care; narrower scope (escape + non-natural use). However, the foreseeability of damage requirement from Cambridge Water introduces a fault element.