Essay On Ryland V Fletcher

The tort of Ryland versus Fletcher began as a tort of strict liability in the era when the industrial
Revolution was booming in UK. It was formulated to serve the purpose of redressing the harm
caused by the claimants due to the expanding industrial revolution. It was stated by Christian
Witting in ‘street on torts’ that it was one of the best Strict liability tort. However, with the
passage of time, the infiltration of the other torts in its application has reduced its effectiveness
as a sort of strict liability as to mere fault-based liability. This leaves us to consider the question
upon the effectiveness of this rule, followed by the defenses and its relationship with other
tort.
However, we shall consider the operation of this rule followed with the defenses and its
connection with the other Torts.
The facts of the case were such that the defendant had built a reservoir on their land. Beneath
the reservoir was an unused mine. The water from the reservoir seeped through the unused
mine to the working mine Causing extensive damage. A liability was imposed on the defendant
based on the factor of the non-natural use of land. Lord Blackburn along with Lord Cairns
formulated the rule in which they stated that a liability would be imposed if a damage was done
due to a non-natural use of land. Such that the defendant brings or collects something on his
land for his own use which might create mischief if it escapes. And it in turn escapes causing
foreseeable damage to the land.
Regarding the requirement of non natural use of land, the courts have adopted a very
restrictive approach in Transco V Stockport MBC where they held that ‘there must be some
very dangerous thing bond on the land that creates A considerable risk towards the neighboring
property and can be amounting to an extraordinary and unusual use of land’. Where the
erosion of the embankment as a result of seepage of water from the pipes sea tending to serve
to the flat, was considered to be within the natural use of land.
However, the rule will not be applicable where the thing was already present on the land
before the defendant's arrival. However, a claim may be brought in nuisance, as per the case of
Leaky v National Trust. Dangerous requirement as per Transco will be assessed by the courts in
case to case by looking at the nature of the substance accumulated on the property. The
element of this escape has been defined in the case of Reads V Lyon that the substance move
from the land occupied by the defendant to the land controlled by the claimant.
The foreseeable damage requirement has been elaborated by courts in the case of Cambridge
Water v Eastern Counties Leather where the chemical used by the Leather manufacturer, which
in turn contaminated the aquifer from which the defendant was the water, was held to be
within the non-natural use of land. The claim failed on the basis that the requirement of
foreseeable damage could not be proved on the facts that the release of the chemical would
damage of such type.
The position as to who can bring a claim under this rule was uncertain before Cambridge Water,
where the courts even allowed the claims of non-occupiers of the land as per Perry V
Kendricks. However, the courts clarified in Cambridge Water that claim could only be bought by
the person who had an interest in land (Weller and co v Foot and Mouth Disease Research
Institute) or was the occupier of the land (Reads v Lyon).
The rule was originally a dot of strict liability, but it was never an absolute liability since there
were defenses applicable Leading to the creation of fault-based liability. The defenses include
the unforeseeable act of a stranger Ricards v Lothian. Act of God Nicholas V Marsland.
Statutory authority Charing Cross electric supply co v hydraulic power co and Consent Kiddle v
City Business Properties ltd. Judges have pointed out a criticism that the rule has rarely been
used in the past and that the principles of the nuisance can govern the liability arising out of the
hazardous use of the land.
The rule has evolved from a tort of strict liability to a fault based liability, as confirmed in
Cambridge Water. Considering its characteristics, it is described as a Subset of private nuisance
and has similar Features as well.
The rule in Ryland shares similarity with that of tort of negligence and private nuisance. A claim
in negligence requires a duty of care to be established, followed by a breach of duty and
Causation along with the remoteness of damage. While in private nuisance, the claimant has to
prove that the defendant land has caused an unreasonable interference with Enjoyment of his
online. The common requirement in all three tort is that the harm that being of fault based
liability a reasonable foreseeability of harm is required for the award of damages.
If the rule were to be in its primary form, which was a sort of strict liability, it would render
immense advantage to the claimants. This would not be favourable and is an impossibility,
according to Lord Goff in Cambridge Waters. Also, it can be argued that the private nuisance
covers this aspect of the thought more adequately as it expands to include the Intangible
escapes such as noise and noxious orders. While the rule is limited to Cover the accumulation
and escape of tangible objects. Instead of establishing liability by satisfying multiple difficult
requirements especially determining the node natural use of land, it can be easily established
through the test of reasonableness and other common law factors as seen in private nuisance.
Other similarities between this rule and private nuisance Is that the claimant must have some
proprietary interest in land for him to sue. It can be argued that the proprietary interest issue is
like that of the legal duty of care of negligence as they demonstrate that claimant has sufficient
basis to bring a claim for redress of grievance caused.
Considering the views stated it might be argued that the contemporaneous presence of the rule
and negligence would no longer serve useful purpose. Alternatively, it can be argued that the
negligence should be preferred over this rule as it tends not only to cover property but also
personal injury, including death which might not be recoverable under this rule. Additionally
negligence is a more settled law with Residents and its wide use and very defined conditions for
liability, while on the other hand the factors of the rule in Ryland requires clarification,
particularly in relation to the non-natural use of land.
To conclude our argument, we shall relate to the present need of the rule in R v F. In words
Stelios Tofaris in, the current judicial preference is still retained but to restrict its application. It
runs counter to the proposal made by Laws LJ in the case of Arscott v Coal Authority, which
held at the rule is “alive and well” which could hardly be agreed with. Further the degradation
of the rule caused over the period of years has Stripped off its primary purpose of Imposing
Strict Liability.

Essay On Ryland V Fletcher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Essay On Ryland V Fletcher

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Essay On Ryland V Fletcher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The tort of Ryland versus Fletcher began as a tort of strict liability in the era when the industrial

You might also like