What is the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher?

This chapter examines the rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868]. The rule holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier of that land is liable for the damage to another caused as a result of the escape, irrespective of fault.

What are the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher requires non-natural use of land by the defendant and escape of the thing from his land, which causes damage.

What happened in the case of Rylands v Fletcher?

In Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords affirmed their decision.

What is strict liability and absolute liability?

A person is made liable only when he is at fault. In the case of strict liability, there are some exceptions where the defendant wouldn’t be made liable. But in the case of absolute liability, no exceptions are provided to the defendant. The defendant will be made liable under the strict liability rule no matter what.

Who can sue under Rylands v Fletcher?

To successfully bring a claim under the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher [1] , there must be an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, for which the occupier will be liable for the damage caused to another as a result of that escape.

Is Rylands A Fletcher or negligence?

(b) Where the plaintiff claims damages for loss caused by a single accidental escape of something harmful from the defendant’s land, and the event is unlikely to be repeated, the action lies either in negligence or under the special strict liability rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

What does escape mean in Rylands v Fletcher?

Definition. ⇒ If the defendant brings onto his land, in a non-natural use of that land, something likely to do mischief it it escapes, and it does escape, the defendant is prima facie liable for all damage which is the natureal consequence of the escape.

What is the significance of the Rylands case?

Rylands v. Fletcher was the 1868 English case (L.R. 3 H.L. 330) that was the progenitor of the doctrine of STRICT LIABILITY for abnormally dangerous conditions and activities.

What is the difference between vicarious liability and strict liability?

In such cases, the employer is undoubtedly liable on the principle of vicarious liability. An employer is liable for the act of an independent contractor in cases of strict liability. The liability of the employer also arises for the dangers caused on or near the highway.

Can you claim for personal injury under Rylands v Fletcher?

The House of Lords made it incredibly apparent in Transco that Rylands v Fletcher was to be seen as a “sub-species” of nuisance and thus; it could only protect rights to an enjoyment of land, it does not extend to allowing a claim for personal injuries.

Was the harm reasonably foreseeable?

The Curious Case of Reasonable Foreseeability To consider an action negligent and therefore find a party responsible for injury, the act would have to be considered reasonably foreseeable. What this means is that a reasonable person has to be able to predict or expect any harmfulness of their actions.