Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Rylands v Fletcher
- Elements
- 1. D must have brought
sth onto land and
collected and kept it 2.
must be likely to cause
mischief if it escapes 3.
must escape and cause
damage 4. must be
non-natural use 5. must be
RF
- defences
- Rickards: tihrd party
- Rylands: vis major, plaintiff's fault
- statutory authority defence (Hammersmith): in
absence of neg, damage caused by ops
authorised by statute is not conpensatible
unless expressly provided for
- non-natural use
- Rickards: providing
water to an apartment
block is ordinary use not
"special"
- Read:
munitions
factory in
wartime is
ordinary.
questionable.
- Cambridge: chemical
storage is a "classic
case" of non natural use
- escape
- Read: no escape, as
explosion happened within
area of control
- narrowing of the tort
- Burnie
(Australia):
subsumed into
negligence
- Transco (HOL): a subspecies
of nuisance. No claim if takes
place on land of one occupier
or for PI (eg. in Read tried to
claim PI, but this is a tort of
land)
- Autex (NZ) agrees that RvF part
of nuisance, not negligence
(council tried to argue neg as
they had not been neg
- foreseeability
- Cambridge: the damage from leaking
chemicals to water supply was
unforeseeable. Foreseeability is
necessary