Rylands v Fletcher GENERAL Liability for the escape of dangerous things PRINCIPLE Rylands v Fletcher - The occupier of land
who brings and keeps on it something that is not related to the natural user of the land And is likely to do damage if it escapes is liable for the foreseeable consequences of its escape even if he/she has not been negligent in allowing it to escape Who can sue? - P must have an interest in the land affected by the escape Transco Plc v Stockport Council - No requirement that D has a proprietary interest in the land control of the place from which escape emanates is sufficient - Could be thing escaped from public place under control of police onto Ps premises Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire - Licensees can be liable Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere INGREDIENTS 1. Something must be brought onto Ds land - Does not apply to something that occurs naturally on land e.g. to trees that grow naturally on the land - The thing brought to and kept on land may be the thing that escapes Rylands v Fletcher But not necessarily it could cause something else to escape o Miles v Forest Rock Granite D kept explosives but it was rocks freed by explosion that escaped from land o LMS Intl v Styrene D collected and kept polystyrene cut by hot wire but it was fire caused by hot wire that escaped 2. It must be brought on the land for Ds own purposes - Not e.g. for those of another person e.g. tenant - Rainham Chemical Works v Belvedere Fish Guano Co landowner liable together with Ministry of Munitions for explosion on land where explosives manufactured on land pursuant to contract between landlord and Ministry 3. There must be a non-natural user of the land - Non-natural not applicable to natural accumulations e.g. rainwater - Rickards v Lothian requires some special use bringing with it increased danger to others must not merely be the ordinary use of land or such use as is proper for general benefit of community o Water escaping from an overflow pipe cannot be described as nonnatural use of land it was held ordinary use of land o Approved in Wayfoong Credit Ltd
Non-natural use come to mean unreasonable use of land, having regard to locality, nature and degree of risk, social and policy justifications for engaging in the activity Meaning may change over time Rainham Chemical Works What may be regarded as dangerous or non-natural will vary according to circumstances take into account circumstances of the time and practice of mankind Read v Lyons storage of munitions in time of war not non-natural May not include some commercial uses e.g. storage of chemicals ordinary industrial operations which community is dependent for its livelihood Cambridge Water Co Transco v Stockport MBC Supply of water through pipes was normal and routine not something that presented a particular hazard risk presented by activity had to be considered by contemporary standards o Rationale Lord Hoffman damage to property caused by leaking water was a risk against which insurance was available- support conclusion that it did not meet high threshold of exceptional risk arising from non-natural use required under Rylands o Lord Bingham ordinary rather than natural use now the preferred concept
4. The thing must likely do mischief if it escapes - No defined class of things applied to water, gas, explosives, poisonous trees - But now a higher threshold Transco Plc v Stockport must show D did something that gives rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief - Thing brought and kept on land need not be dangerous in itself provided it is likely to cause harm if it escapes - Foreseeability of risk by D a prerequisite to recovery of damages Cambridge Water o Thus strict liability only in sense that D would be liable for consequences of escape even if he had taken steps to prevent it occurring o Cambridge Water D had not foreseen chemicals would seep through floor and contaminate water supplies no liability under Rylands - Foreseeability of consequences of escape o Traditionally Rylands v Fletcher holds D liable for all natural consequences of the escape o But in Cambridge Waters Lord Goff requires foreseeability by D of the relevant type of damage o Unclear what is the rule here o Type of damage foreseeable Chan Ying Wah v Bachy suffice with common knowledge that there are farms in New Territories and that seawater if escapes can cause harm to agriculture in nearby land - Compare cold air generated by an air conditioning unit Bulmer Ltd v Electronics HK 5. There must be an escape from the land - Vibrations emanating from Ds property causing physical damage to Ps property can constitute an escape Hui Yuen Fong v Mok Mo Yin - Read v Lyons injury to inspector of munitions factory
P must have some interest in the land to which the offending thing escaped Cambridge Water Co Rylands v Fletcher is a species of nuisance Personal injury not within rule Transco should be brought under negligence o Rylands should be reserved for damage to property or damage to interests in property Damages only recoverable for relatively foreseeable injury Cambridge Water Co
DEFENCES Statutory authority - Ds actions may be authorized by statute not liable so long as he acted in line with statutory requirements - Smeaton v Ilford Corp Public Health Act excused D from liability for escape of sewage Act of God - Unforeseeable natural circumstances that caused the escape D not liable Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry - E.g. If heavy flooding caused water to escape in Rylands v Fletcher D may not be liable Act of third party - Rickards v Lothian Flood caused by third party D not liable - Perry v Kendricks Stranger not under control of D caused the escape D not liable Consent - If P expressly or impliedly consented to the collecting and keeping of thing that escaped he cannot hold D liable for consequence of escape See Transco Lord Hoffman (p.18-19)
Contributory negligence - If P partly to blame for damage to his property e.g. failing to take proper precautions against the sort of harm occurred any award of damages may be reduced - An apportionment of liability Section 21 Law Amendment Reform (Consolidation) Ord. DAMAGES Personal injury o Personal injury damages not claimable under this tort action such damages require proof of negligence Hunter v Canary Wharf Property damage R v F: protect land interest o May include cost to replace or repair damaged property, including chattels
o Chan Ying Wah v Bachy profits lost as result of damage to property crops and plants Injunctions o Not normally available but perhaps in cases of continuing escape
NATURE AND FUTURE OF THE RULE A particular application (sub-category) of nuisance England/Hong Kong Absorbed by negligence The Australian approach equating the requirements as more often than not amounting to a search for negligent conduct Developed into a tort of strict liability for (ultra) hazardous activities (US law) approach in India (Mehta v Union of India) discharge of toxic gas from factory useful as form of environmental protection? But note courts reluctance to treat torts of strict liability judicially Questions - Based on strict liability? no element of knowledge, intention, reasonable foreseeability insofar as consequences of escape is concerned But requires Ds foreseeability of the risk of escaping Which one is right?
