Question 1

Rylands v Fletcher introduced strict liability in relation to isolated escapes of things from land.

Accepted Answer

in many ways this can be seen as a direct (judicial) response to the dangers brought with industrialisation. The idea behind liability under the rule is that landowners who took the risk of keeping something on their land should be liable if it escaped on to someone else's land, without the need to prove fault.

Question 2

In Rylands v Fletcher, Blackburn J formulated the rule as follows:
'the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do _____ 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'.

Accepted Answer

mischief

Question 3

When Rylands v Fletcher reached the House of Lords, a further requirement (to establish liability under the rule) was added by Lord Cairns. What was it?&#10;A) That the defendant must be engaging in non-natural use of land&#10;B) That the defendant must have been careless&#10;C) That the defendant must have caused the escape

Accepted Answer

Lord Cairns added the requirement that the defendant must be engaging in a non-natural use of land in order to establish liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. This means that the use of land must be something that is not ordinary or naturally occurring in that area, and it must pose a special risk of harm.

Question 4

Over 100 years after Rylands v Fletcher, a fourth requirement (to establish liability under the rule) was added, in the case Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]. What was it?&#10;A) That the escape was caused by carelessness&#10;B) That the defendant must have been able to foresee the consequences of an escape&#10;C) That the defendant must have caused the escape

Accepted Answer

The fourth requirement added in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] is that the defendant must have been able to foresee the consequences of an escape. This means that if the defendant had no way of knowing or predicting that their actions could result in an escape of something harmful, they would not be held liable under the rule.

Question 5

Claiming under Rylands v Fletcher has become easier since the House of Lords decision in Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]

Accepted Answer

the four requirements to make out a claim were clarified in the Transco case, with the result that bringing something onto land 'likely to do mischief if it escapes' now equates to something having 'an exceptionally high risk of danger', and the concept of 'non-natural' use of land was reinterpreted as being 'extraordinary or unusual'. Both of these reinterpretations make the liability criteria harder to satisfy.

Question 6

Why was there no liability in Read v Lyons?&#10;A) Because the use of the land was natural&#10;B) Because the escape had not been foreseeable&#10;C) Because there hadn't been an escape

Accepted Answer

There was no liability in Read v Lyons because there hadn't been an escape. The case involved a discussion of the doctrine of dikes, which held that a landowner was not liable for damage caused by a natural or inevitable flow of water onto their neighbor's property. The court found that there had been no actual escape of water onto the plaintiff's land, therefore the defendant was not liable. The other choices (A and B) are not applicable to this case as they deal with different elements of the law of nuisance.

Question 7

In Read v Lyons [1947], Lord Macmillan expressed his doubts (obiter) about using the rule in Rylands v Fletcher to claim damages for personal injury. He said:
'as the law stands an allegation of _________ is in general essential to the relevancy of an action for reparation for personal injuries'.

Accepted Answer

The answer of In Read v Lyons [1947], Lord Macmillan...

Question 8

Why was there no liability in Rickards v Lothian?&#10;A) Because the use of the land was natural&#10;B) Because the escape had not been foreseeable&#10;C) Because there hadn't been an escape

Accepted Answer

The court found that the use of the land was natural, which is why there was no liability in Rickards v Lothian.

Question 9

The claim in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] did not succeed because the harm suffered (a polluted water supply) was considered an unforeseeable consequence of the chemical spillages.

Accepted Answer

the foreseeability requirement was added by Lord Goff in Cambridge Water and, having found that the other three requirements for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher were made out, he said that the claim could not succeed as there was no way the defendants could have foreseen that chemicals they spilled would have escaped from their land and entered the claimant's water borehole over a mile away.

Question 10

What has happened to the Rylands v Fletcher rule in Australia?&#10;A) It has been subsumed into the law of nuisance&#10;B) It has been subsumed into the law of trespass&#10;C) It has been subsumed into the law of negligence

Accepted Answer

In Australia, the principles from Rylands v Fletcher have largely been incorporated into the broader law of negligence, rather than being treated as a separate legal doctrine. This means that cases which might previously have been considered under the specific rule of Rylands v Fletcher are now more likely to be analyzed within the framework of negligence law.

Deck 19: Actions Uder the Rule of Rylands V Fletcher