Rylands v fletcher originates in an 1868 House of Lords case of the same name. It states that the defendant is liable if on his land,, he accumulates a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of that land, and the thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage.
The Case Itself:
The defendant was the owner of a water mill who contracted with builders to construct a reservoir to guarantee a water supply to the mill. The builders sealed the bottom of the reservoir carelessly so that when it was filled, water leaked into the mine shafts below and from there, escaped through tunnels into the claimants mines causing considerable damage. The defendant was held liable for the escape caused by independent contractors, even though it was no fault of his own.
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is Strict liability. It is a sub-species of nuisance - confirmed in Transco plc v Stockport MBC, this means a number of rules in private nuisance also apply.
Bringing an action:
To establish a claim, the claimant must show the following:

Claimants legal position - Claimant should have a legal interest in the land, shown in private nuisance in hunter v canary wharf and transferred to R. v F. in Transco.
Accumulation - The defendant must voluntarily bring onto his land an accumulation of the substance which escaped. This covers an artificial accumulation of material (natural or not) but not a natural accumulation such as a lake. - Giles v Walker

A dangerous thing - The substance accumulated must be something that is 'likely to cause mischief if it escapes'. This includes hazardous materials such as chemicals and explosives as well as less threatening substances such as water, if they are stored in bulk. - Hale v Jennings Transco also stated that the accumulated substance must pose an 'exceptional risk', to which water in a pipe did not classify.
A Non-natural use - This does not mean a use which is artificial or man made, but rather a use which is not 'commonplace'. In Rickards v Lothain, the supply of water through pipes to a block of flats was an ordinary use. In Cambridge water v Eastern counties leather, the defendant owned a tannery. The storage of bulk chemicals for an industrial process was considered a non-natural use of the land.
Escape - The substance in question must have moved from the land the defendant controls to the claimants land. - Read v Lyons - Claimant couldn't bring an action as she was still on the defendants premises when the damage was done.

Reasonably foreseeable damage - this requirement was introduced by the house of lords in Cambridge v Eastern counties leather - the claimants action in that case failed because it was not foreseeable that chemicals would leak through rocks and contaminate springs. As in private nuisance, only damage to land and goods stored on the land can be claimed for, although older cases like Read v Lyons seem to assume that physical injury is recoverable.

Defences: ( A Strict liability tort, yet there are defences):

Act of a Sranger - Rickards v Lothain
Act of God - Nichols v Marsden
Statutory authority - Green v Cleasea waterworks
Conributory negligence - sayers v Harlow
Consent/ Volenti - Morris v murray
Common benifit - If the accumulation is for the benefit of the claimant and the defendant

	Erstellt von Sophie.J.E vor etwa 11 Jahre

A-Levels Law (Law of Tort) Notiz am Law of Tort Summary (Pt 2), erstellt von Sophie.J.E am 29/10/2013.