An in depth guide to show you how to answer a problem question that relates to Rylands v Fletcher. This guide contains all the key cases and principles in order to gain a first class grade.
Hi, I'm sorry you didn't find this resource useful. I would appreciate any feedback you have so I can improve the resource for future students. People who have relied on this document have received 2.1 - 1st class marks in torts. However, I understand how this might not be everyone's preferred way of learning - any comments are much appreciated.
Seller
Follow
annabelersmith
Reviews received
Content preview
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?
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller annabelersmith. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.17. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
