the ryland’s vs fletcher case

8/8/2019 The Rylands vs Fletcher Case

1/15

THE RYLANDSVS. FLETCHERCASE

Group 5

Georgia Tate Mario Hylto

Shawna Gray Jennilyn Bur

Yanique Brent-Harris Nicoy Smith

Ewan Reno


2/15

WHATISATORT

A civil wrong for which a remedy may be

obtained. Basically a tort is something someone

else did wrong that caused you injury and forwhich you can sue. A tort can be intentional but

is far more likely to result from carelessness

called Negligence.


3/15

TYPESOF TORT

Nuisance Public or Private

Negligence

Trespass


4/15

THECASE

The defendants, mill owners in the coal mining area of

Lancashire, had constructed a reservoir on their land. The

water broke through the filled-in shaft of an abandoned

coal mine and flooded connecting passageways into the

plaintiff's active mine nearby. In 1865, the trial court found

that the defendants were ignorant of the abandoned mine

shaft and free ofNegligence and decided the case in favor of

the defendants.


5/15

THE CASE

In 1866, in appeal by the plaintiffs, the Exchequer

Chamber decided to reverse the lower court and

imposed strict liability on the defendants, but the

case did not readily fit within the existing TORTtheories. No Trespass had occurred since the

premises of plaintiff and defendants did not adjoin;

therefore, the flooding was not direct, nor was it aNuisance, since there was nothing offensive to the

senses and the damage was not continuous or

recurring.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Nuisancehttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Trespass


6/15

THECASE CONTD

Justice Colin Blackburn, comparing the situation

to trespasses involving cattle and dangerous

animals, declared. The true Rule of Law is, that

the person who for his own purposes brings on

his lands and collects and keeps there anything

likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in

at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is Prima

Facie answerable for all the damage which is the

natural consequence of its escape.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prima+Faciehttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Prima+Faciehttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Rule+of+Law


7/15

FORESEEABILITY

There is now a further requirement, according to

the House of Lords, that harm of the relevant

type must have been foreseeable


8/15

RULINGBYTHEHOUSEOFLORDS

The person who for his own purposes bring on his

own land and collects and keep there anything

likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at

his own peril and if he does not do so is

answerable for all the damage which is the

natural consequence of its escape.


9/15

RULING CONTD

Rylands sued on the grounds of Fletchers

negligence. Fletcher himself had not been

negligent as he had no knowledge of the existence

of the shafts. He was not vicariously liable for the

actions of the contractors as they were not his

employees.


10/15

o

The case eventually went to the House of Lords on appeal whoupheld the original judgment that Fletcher was liable in tort.

oDuring the appeal Lord Cairns, in agreeing with the above

statement, added the qualification that the rule only applied to a

non-natural use of the land, and not to circumstances where a

substance accumulated naturally on land. The word natural has

since been extended to mean ordinary.(http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20q%20r%20s%20t/Ryl

ands_v_Fletcher.htm)


11/15

REMEDIES THEOWNEROFLANDCLOSETO

THEESCAPECANRECOVERDAMAGESFOR:

1. Physical harm to the land itself (as in Rylands

v Fletcher) and to the other property.

2. It is no longer clear if a claimant can recover

for personal injury


12/15

DEFENCES

Common Benefit If the source of the danger wasmaintained for the benefit of both theclaimant and defendant, the defendantwill not be liable for its escape

Statutory Authority A statute require a person or body tocarry out a particular activity.Liability of Ryland v Fletcher may be

excluded upon interpretation of thestatute

Default of a claimant If the escape is the fault of theclaimant there will be noliability. Alternatively, theremay be contributory negligence

on the part of the claimant

Act of God

Act of a stranger

Consent of plaintiff


13/15

OTHER CASES WHICH HAVE USED RYLANDS

V FLETCHER

Defence does not depend on ownership of land, covers a

variety of offensive and dangerous substances

Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power

Co (1914)

The defendants water mains under a public street burst

and damaged the claimants cable which were also laid

under the street

Held- the defendant was liable under the rule in Rylands

v Fletcher, because the rule was not confined to wrongs

between owners of adjacent land and did not depend on

ownership of land. Here it could be applied to adjacent

chattels


14/15

DEFENSEACTOF GOD

Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway Co (1917)

The Corporation in laying out a park, constructed a

concrete paddling pool for children in the bed of a

stream, thereby altering its course and natural flow.

Owing to rainfall of extraordinary violence the stream

overflowed and flooded the railway companys premises.

Held- The House of Lords held that this was an act of

God based on Nicholas v Marsland (1876) which held

that the point at issue was the liability for storing water

in artificial lakes, the point here was interference with

the natural flow

Anyone so interfering must provide even against

exceptional rainfall


15/15

CONCLUSION

The dispute in Rylands vs. Fletcher case concerned escape of

water onto neighbouring land. Later cases in which the

Rylands test was applied involved the escape of all manner of

wastes and materials, extending outwards to a broad range of

inherently dangerous activities considered essential to

modern life. The application and interpretation of the

Rylands rule has been an important step in the development

of legal policy relating to modern industry, risk allocation,

liability and negligence.

the ryland’s vs fletcher case

Documents