#4657 - Rylands And Fletcher

Concerned the flooding of the C’s mineshafts by water – D had collected in a reservoir on his property
- Independent contractors had constructed the reservoir in such a way as to cause the water to flood the C’s underlying mine
- D was not negligent in allowing the water to escape – but Blackburn J held him to be liable – ‘the person who for his own purpose brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril’
HL upheld decision but introduced the rule that the D’s use should be ‘non natural use’ of his land

‘Brings onto land and accumulates there…’

Giles v Walker – no liability for the spread of thistles from the D’s land as they grew there naturals and had not been brought onto the land

For his own purposes anything likely to do mischief

Liability for things which are obviously dangerous – also possible to impose liability for relatively safe things if they can escape in a way which would make them dangerous
Acid – Rainham Chemical Works v Belveder Fish Guano
Explosives – Read v Lyons
Colliery spoil – AG v Cory Bros Ltd

Escape

Substance must escape from land over which the D has control to land where he does not: Read v Lyons – claim failed because C was injured by an explosion on the defendant’s land – there was no escape

Non-Natural User: thing that has been accumulated must have quality of being for non-natural use

Richards v Lothian – Lord Moulton – ‘…it must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land’
- C suffered damage when the D’s sink overflowed because a trespasser had blocked it
- D was making ordinary and proper use of his land so no liability: all the circumstances taken into account
Just because earlier case found non-natural use will not categorise that item forever– times change!
- Musgrove v Pandelis (1919): held that storing a car full of petrol in a garage was non-natural use of land – (shows how times change)
- Mason v Levy Auto Parts (1967) – combustible materials held not to be a non-natural use
Chemicals : Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather :HL rejected argument that chemicals in a factory are natural in present day storage of chemicals = ‘almost classic case’ of non-natural use
Giles v Walker – vegetation is natural
Transco plc v Stockport MBC – HL followed Rickards v Lothian – stated that piping of water for domestic use was not non-natural : Lord Bingham – said that would only be non-natural if extraordinary and unusual
Non-natural and dangerousness seems to be intertwined concepts

Foreseeability

Case of Rylands v Fletcher : imposing strict liability where an isolated escape has occurred
Cambridge Water Co –(HL) foreseeability of damage is ESSENTIAL for a claim to succeed: suggests backlash vs. strict liability: D must have known or ought reasonably to have foreseen that the something, which escaped, could cause damage were it to do so
BUT: Must foresee the DAMAGE – NOT the ESCAPE - so strict liability DOES still apply

Who can Sue?

Read v Lyons :necessary for the C to have an interest in land (development of private nuisance)
- BUT: claimants with no interest had succeeded – Charing Cross Electricity v Hydraulic Power; British Celanese Ltd v A. H. Hunt (Capacitors) Ltd – claimant need not be the occupier
HOWEVER: Cambridge Water - Rylands no more than an extension of the private nuisance:
- Confirmed in Transco that it is a sub-species of private nuisance, so following Canary Warf must have an interest in land
Requirement of an interest in land has been challenged by HRA 1998 (see below)

Damage

If the C has agreed to the accumulation of the material by the D there will be no liability under the rule – consent can be implied if the substance has been accumulated for the common benefit of the C and the D: Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

If escape is due to the actions of the C then they will be unable to complain – Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co – where the claimant dug under the D’s canal and caused it to flood
If the C’s act is merely contributory there may be shared negligence - Ponting v Noakes

Will depend on the construction of the statute – Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co and Charing Cross Electricity CO v Hydraulic

Defence was provided for in Rylands – D will escape liability if he can show that the situation arose due to the unforeseeable acts of a stranger over whom he had no control – defence will only operate if he has not been negligent – Perry v Kendrick’s Transport and Hale v Jennings

Recognised as a defence in Rylands :
- Not every natural occurrence will be an Act of God- restricted to exceptional and unforeseeable situations – e.g. unforeseeable high flooding, earthquakes and unusually violent storms -
Criticised and modified in Greenock Corp v Caledonian Railway Co

Future developments in Rylands

Lord Bingham in Transco plc v Stockport MBC
- Rule’s practical usefulness is limited and successful actions are RARE (LMS International and Others v Styrene Packaging (2005))
- Invited to dismiss it in Transco but HL declined to do so – would leave a lacuna

Torts relating to land and Human Rights

May be possible to include claim for loss and damage due to nuisance under HRA – e.g. McKenna v British Aluminium Ltd where it is not possible to claim for a ‘nuisance-type’ damage in tort
Dennis v Ministry of Defence - C brought action in private nuisance AND under HRA for noise levels caused by Harrier jet fighters during take-off from RAF base:
- Claimed under protocol 1 (protection of property) and A8 (private & family) – MOD said that the defence of public benefit applied to the claim in nuisance – but also found that HR had been infringed – decided on an appropriate assessment of damages under common law principles
Hatton v UK – residents living near to Heathrow – ECHR agreed that the government had struck the correct balance btw the needs of individual landowners and economic interest generally – but that the domestic remedies available were inadequate

Claimant’s...

#4657 - Rylands And Fletcher - GDL Tort Law