The rule established under Rylands v. Fletcher in 1868 is a
special example of a tort of nuisance. It is often used a study case due to its
clear evolution and specificity.
What were the facts of the original case?
The defendants owned a mill with some surrounding land, upon
which they undertook to build a reservoir. The reservoir was to store water to
use in their industrial processes.
Once the reservoir had been constructed and filled, it was
found that water had leaked into a disused mineshaft below. The water had then
penetrated into the tunnels of a neighbouring mine that was still very much in
use by its owners.
The claimants brought a case for damages, which was held on
the basis that:
“If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything
which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at
his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however
careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent
the damage.” Cranworth, LJ ([1868] UKHL 1 House of Lords
What is the significance of the rule?
The main significance of this rule lies in that it
established a precedent where, under such circumstances, the defendant will be
held strictly liable for resulting damages.
What requisites must be met for a case to be successfully
brought under this rule?
The defendant must have either brought onto, or accumulated
on their land the thing which causes the damage. A defendant cannot be held
responsible for something that is already there. For example in Giles v Walker
(1890) 24 QBD 656 the defendant was not held liable for thistles that had
propagated onto neighbouring land, damaging crops.
The thing itself need not be dangerous, but the act of it
escaping must be likely to cause a mischief. For example, in Shiffman v The
Grand Priory of St John [1936] 1 All ER 557, a flagpole (not in itself a
dangerous thing) fell and injured the claimant and the claim was held.
There must be an escape from the boundaries of the
defendant's land. If injury is sustained within those boundaries, there may be
a claim under tort, but it is most likely to be one of occupiers liability or other
negligence. In Read v Lyons [1947] AC 156 House of Lords, a munitions worker
was injured by an explosion at the factory. As there was no escape, there was
no liability under the rule.
There must be damage caused and, it is widely accepted, that
damage must be to land. However there continues to be some academic discourse
as to whether personal injury claims can still be brought under Rylands v
Fletcher, primarily because it is a variety of nuisance.
Finally, and often most contentiously, by bringing the
“thing” upon it, the defendant must be making “non-natural” use of the land.
What is contentious about the requisite of “non-natural
use”?
The main contention is that the definition of “non-natural
use” is bound up with the social, historic and perhaps even moral context of
the time and particular case.
For example, the installation of an industrial reservoir
was, at the time, considered non-natural. Now, however, it is commonplace on
many industrial sites, so could a similar case now be brought? It seems
unlikely.
However, there have been more recent developments that have
evolved this requisite. One was the ruling in Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263
Privy Council. Here, the courts found that there had been no liability for a
services flood in a building both because a) it had been caused by a third
party and b) because there was no non-natural use of the land when measured
against:
“some special use bringing with it increased danger to
others, and not merely the ordinary use of the land, or such a use as is proper
for the benefit of the community”
So, it can be seen here that there has been a departure from
what use the land has been put to and greater emphasis on the danger and nature
of the activity itself.
This was further developed in Transco plc v Stockport
Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1
House of Lords where Lord Bingham stated that “the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher is engaged only where the defendant's use is shown to be extraordinary
and unusual. This is not a test to be inflexibly applied: a use may be
extraordinary and unusual at one time or in one place but not so at another
time or in another place.”
What are the defences available under this rule?
There is defence where it can be proven that, either
expressly or impliedly, the claimant has consented to the presence of the thing
and/or the risk. For example, by living in a high-rise block of flats, one
might be seen to have given implied consent for water to be stored in your
neighbours water storage tank.
Another defence is where the claimant can be proven to have
been at fault for the escape. In addition there is a defence where the escape
is proven to be as a result of the wrongful act of a third party, as proven in
Rickards v. Lothian above.
A further defence is where there has been an act of god,
which could not have been reasonably foreseen, as in heavy rainfall in Nichols
v Marsland (1876) 2 ExD 1. It should be noted though, that this case holds less
water since a decision to the contrary in Greenock Corporation v Caledonian
Railway [1917] AC 556.
Finally, there may also be defense where a person is
performing a statutory duty and that statute excludes liability under Rylands
and Fletcher.
What remedies are available under Rylands v. Fletcher?
It is clear that the claimant may be awarded damages for the
damage to the land. It is still not clear whether damages for personal injury
will be awarded since the remarks of Hoffman LJ in Transco plc v Stockport
Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1
House of Lords. There is no provision for pure economic loss under this
rule.
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/
http://www.lawteacher.net/PDF/Rylands%20v%20Fletcher.pdf
http://caselawquotes.net/R/Rylands_v_Fletcher_Rule.html
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd031119/trans-3.htm
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1917/1917_SC_HL_56.html
CEM, (2012). All Papers. MSc - Law for Surveyors. [online] Reading: CEM. Available at: http://learn.cem.ac.uk/mod/folder/view.php?id=98458 [Accessed 1 Mar. 2015].
No comments:
Post a Comment