58285
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Lavinia Glover, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Lavinia Glover
vor etwa 11 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| Rylan v Fletcher | Controversial area of tort law. Product of the Industrial Revolution/Victorian age. Rylands v Fletcher (1865) Dft employed contractors (c) to build a reservoir on his land to supply water to his factory. C negligently failed to block a disused mine shaft. Reservoir was filled - Plaintiff’s (P) adjoining land flooded. The House of Lords approved the decision, subject to the additional requirement that the defendant’s user of his land should be non-natural Governs liability for escapes from land, used for a non-natural purpose, which cause damage. But see Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leatherwork plc. (1994) |
| Elements of tort | The defendant must control the land: Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd (1918) (explosives for quarrying - even though it was rocks that escaped) The defendant must have brought or accumulated something in the course of some ‘unnatural use’ of the land: Rickards v Lothian (1913) (water from overflow pipe did not qualify) Read v Lyons & Co Ltd (1947) (‘what may be regarded as dangerous and non-natural will vary depending on the circumstances’ – Lord Porter) Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leatherwork plc. (1994) (storage of large quantities of chemicals on industrial premises – classic case of non-natural. User). Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) – HoL Held that a water pipe not unnatural use of land |
| ELEMENTS OF TORT | The thing brought or accumulated must be ‘dangerous’, meaning likely to do damage if it escapes from the land: Jones v Festiniog Railway (1867) West v Bristol Tramways Co (1908) What D brings/stores must be likely to do damage if it escaped (even though safe per se) see Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) - foreseeability test applies There must be an escape of a dangerous thing Damage caused due to escape. No liability to someone on D’s land There must be damage as a result Tort not actionable per se – escape of dangerous thing must be proved to have caused damage. Since Transco PI/death not covered by the tort |
| WHO CAN SUE | an interest in land is required The mental element – strict liability, but unnatural use is a requirement and the allows courts to make policy decisions See Read v Lyons & Co Ltd (1947) Cambridge Water “fault” element – D will be liable if the type of damage was reasonably foreseeable. Can therefore the rule in Rylands v Fletcher be truly one based on strict liability? |
| DEFENCES | Volenti and common benefit – consent to a dangerous thing being on the claimant’s land . - express - implied Contributory negligence and default of the claimant - where a c contributes to the escape, damages can be reduced - default is where the c is completely at fault for the escape or where escape causes damage because of some abnormal sensitivity on the part of c’s land See Eastern & South Africa Telegraph Co v Cape Town Tramway Co (1902) |
| DEFENCES | Statutory Authority – D may escape liability under RvF if the terms of the relevant statute clearly authorise their actions. See Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) Act of a stranger – damage done by a third party not acting under the D’s instructions. Box v Jubb (1879) Act of God – escape due to natural forces in circumstances which the D could not have been expected to foresee or guard against. See Nichols v Marsland (1876) |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.