untitled

(Steven Felgate) #1
The rule in Rylands vFletcher 253

The requirements of the tort are:


(i) the defendant must either bring something onto his land or let it accumulate there;


(ii) this must be a non-natural use of the land;


(iii) the thing must be likely to do mischief if it escapes;


(iv) the thing must escape and cause damage.


It is probably the case that only an owner or occupier of land can sue. It may possibly be the
case that a person without an interest in land can sue for physical injury, but the position is
unclear.


Remedies


Damages are available to the defendant.Cambridge Water Co Ltd vEastern Counties
Leather plcestablished that theWagon Mound test on foreseeability applies. So a claim can
be made only in respect of a type of damage which was reasonably foreseeable. However,
the tort is one of strict liability in that a defendant can be liable even if he or she has taken
all reasonable care to prevent the thing escaping.


Defences


Statutory authority and contributory negligence are available as defences. Both of these
were considered earlier in this chapter, in relation to the tort of nuisance.


Consent of the claimant


The consent of the claimant, whether express or implied, to the thing being accumulated on
the defendant’s land is a defence.


Act of God


This defence would apply where natural forces, rather than human intervention, caused the
escape in circumstances which no human foresight could provide against. The defence
might apply if the escape was caused by an earthquake or a tornado.
Figure 9.2 gives an overview of the rule in Rylands vFletcher.


Rylands vFletcher (1866) (House of Lords)

The defendants took on reputable engineers as independent contractors (see p. 261 later
in this chapter) to build a reservoir on their land. The defendants took all reasonable care
but the engineers did not, as they failed to seal some disused mine shafts. This failure
caused the claimant’s mine to be flooded.
HeldThe defendants were liable, even though they had not been negligent and were not
vicariously liable (see p. 261 later in this chapter) for the actions of the engineers.
Free download pdf