In the case of Rylands v Fletcher, the court laid down a rule which serves as the basis for the tort of strict liability for harm caused by the escape of dangerous things.
TITLE
Explain and critically analyse each element of the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
ESSAY
Title: A Critical Analysis of the Essential Elements of the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Introduction
The tort of Rylands v Fletcher, stemming from the landmark case of Rylands v Fletcher [1868] LR 3 HL 330, establishes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous thing on to a neighbour's land. This essay will dissect each essential element of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, namely bringing something on to the land, an accumulation, nonš„natural use, escape, and damage, with reference to pertinent case law. Subsequently, a critical analysis of these elements will be conducted to illuminate potential complexities and contentious issues within this area of law.
Explaining the Essential Elements
1. Bringing something on to the land
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher requires the defendant to bring something onto their land that is likely to do mischief if it escapes. In the case of Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61, it was established that the defendant must have brought the dangerous thing onto their land voluntarily, regardless of whether or not they were aware of its dangerous propensities.
2. An accumulation
The element of accumulation entails the presence of a dangerous thing on the defendant's land which poses a hazard to neighbouring properties. In Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co [1894] 1 QB 56, the accumulation of water in a reservoir resulted in flooding to the claimant's property, thereby satisfying the requirement of an accumulation.
3. Nonš„natural use
The concept of nonš„natural use refers to an exceptional use of the land which goes beyond the ordinary purposes for which the land is employed. In Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263, the House of Lords held that the escape of water from a cistern due to a burst pipe constituted a nonš„natural use of the land, thereby triggering liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
4. Escape
Escape denotes the unauthorized release or movement of the dangerous thing from the defendant's land onto the claimant's property. In Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947] AC 156, the escape of water from the defendant's factory due to a burst pipe constituted a clear instance of escape leading to liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
5. Damage
For liability to arise under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, there must be actual damage resulting from the escape of the dangerous thing. In Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53, the contamination of the claimant's water supply due to the escape of chemicals from the defendant's premises was deemed sufficient to establish actionable harm.
Critical Analysis of the Essential Elements
Nonš„natural use: The interpretation of what constitutes nonš„natural use remains a contentious issue in Rylands v Fletcher cases. The ambiguity surrounding the definition of nonš„natural use necessitates a caseš„byš„case analysis, leading to uncertainty in the application of this element.
Escape: The requirement of escape has been criticized for imposing strict liability on defendants even in cases where they have taken reasonable precautions to prevent escape. The need to establish a clear threshold for escape to avoid disproportionate liability is a subject of ongoing debate in Rylands v Fletcher jurisprudence.
Foreseeability of harm: Some scholars argue that the element of foreseeability of harm should be incorporated into the rule in Rylands v Fletcher to align it with principles of negligence. However, the existing strict liability framework poses challenges in introducing a foreseeability component without deviating from the original intent of the rule.
Recoverable damage: The types of damage that are recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher have evolved over time, with courts adopting a broad approach to compensating claimants for various forms of harm. Balancing the scope of recoverable damage with the need for proportionality and fairness remains a critical issue in the development of this area of law.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher encapsulates a stringent liability regime for harm caused by the escape of dangerous things on to neighbouring properties. By deconstructing and critically analysing each essential element of this rule, this essay has shed light on the complexities and challenges inherent in applying Rylands v Fletcher in modern legal contexts. Addressing the ambiguities surrounding nonš„natural use, escape, foreseeability of harm, and recoverable damage is essential for the continued evolution and refinement of the principles underlying this tort.
SUBJECT
LAW
PAPER
A level and AS level
NOTES
In the case of Rylands v Fletcher, the court laid down a rule which serves as the basis for the tort of strict liability for harm caused by the escape of dangerous things. This rule consists of five essential elements that must be satisfied for a successful claim:
1. Bringing something on to the land: This element requires the defendant to have brought or accumulated something on their land that is capable of causing harm if it escapes. In the case of Rylands v Fletcher, the defendant had constructed a reservoir on their land, which was considered to satisfy this requirement.
2. An accumulation: This element refers to the collection or accumulation of something on the land by the defendant. The case of Ponting v Noakes established that the defendant does not have to be the one who accumulated the dangerous thing, as long as they continue to use it.
3. Nonš„natural use: The use of the land and the thing brought onto it must be nonš„natural, meaning it is something out of the ordinary and not a common use of the land. In the case of Rylands v Fletcher, the court considered the construction of the reservoir to be a nonš„natural use of the land.
4. Escape: There must be an escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant's land, even if all possible precautions were taken. In the case of Read v Lyons, the court held that mere seepage did not constitute an escape.
5. Damage: The escape of the dangerous thing must result in some form of damage, which can include physical harm, property damage, or economic loss. In the case of Rylands v Fletcher, the escape of water from the reservoir caused flooding and damage to the plaintiff's mine.
Critical analysis of these elements can lead to various issues and considerations, such as:
š„ The meaning of nonš„natural use: There may be challenges in determining what constitutes a nonš„natural use of the land, especially in modern contexts where activities that were once considered nonš„natural may now be more common.
š„ The meaning of escape: Questions may arise regarding what constitutes an escape, particularly in cases involving gradual or continuous processes such as pollution.
š„ Foreseeability of harm: Some may argue that foreseeability of harm should be a necessary element for liability under Rylands v Fletcher, while others may maintain that strict liability is appropriate to hold defendants accountable.
š„ Types of damage: There may be debates over the types of damage that are recoverable under the rule, especially in relation to economic loss or intangible harm.
š„ Other relevant points: Considerations may also include the scope of the rule, defences available to defendants, and potential limitations on liability.
Overall, a critical analysis of the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is essential to fully understand its application and implications in the realm of tort law.