Rylands v Fletcher

Elements
1. 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
1. Rickards: tihrd party
2. Rylands: vis major, plaintiff's fault
3. 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
1. Rickards: providing water to an apartment block is ordinary use not "special"
2. Read: munitions factory in wartime is ordinary. questionable.
3. Cambridge: chemical storage is a "classic case" of non natural use
escape
1. Read: no escape, as explosion happened within area of control
narrowing of the tort
1. Burnie (Australia): subsumed into negligence
2. 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)
  1. Autex (NZ) agrees that RvF part of nuisance, not negligence (council tried to argue neg as they had not been neg
foreseeability
1. Cambridge: the damage from leaking chemicals to water supply was unforeseeable. Foreseeability is necessary

Resource summary

	Created by theresa.upperton almost 11 years ago