Tort -> The Rule in Ryland v Fletcher

Blackburn J: the person who, for purposes of his own, brings on his land, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

Ingredients of rule A bringing on to land and accumulating: No liability for things naturally present (Giles v Walker) Or for natural accumulations (Ellison v Ministery of Defence) Escape need not be by thing brought onto land (Miles v Forest Rock Granite) A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes: Escape need no be probable (Musgrove v Pandelis) Nor the thing dangerious in itself (Shiffman v Order of St John) Escape causes foreseeable harm (Hale v Jennings) A non-natural use of the land: Domestic use is usually natural (Sokachi v Sas) Unusual volume or quantity suggests non-natural use - The Charing Cross case. Thing escapes and causes damage: Either from land in defendants control to that not in his/her control (Read v Lyons) or from circumstances within defendants control to ones not in his/her control (British Celanese v A H Hunt) Damage is foreseeable (Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather).

Parties to an action Potential defendants: if Read v Lyons is followed will be owners or occupiers of land thing escaped from. if British Celanese v Hunt is taken will be people in control of circumstances escape happed from. Potential Claimants If Read v Lyons is followed then owners/occupiers of land thing escaped to. if British Celanese then claimant does not need a proprietary interest in land.

Problems with Rule Number of defences Requirements of foreseeability. Read v Lyons Non-Natural Use No Real Strict liability for dangers

Defences Consent (Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre) Common benefit (Dunne v North West Gas Board). Act of stranger (Perry V Dendricks Transport). Act of God (Nicholls v Marsland) Statutory Authority (Green v Chelsea Waterworks) Contributory negligence (Eastern Telegraph v Cape Town Tramways).

Recoverable Loss and Remoteness of Damage

• According to MacMillian, recovery is only possible for damage to land occupied by the claimant or his chattels on that land.
• Lawton suggests claimants for PI are also possible (Hale v Jennings (1938)).
• All damage must be proven as tort not actionable per se.
• No liability for mere interference with enjoyment of land (Eastern & SA Telegraph Co v Cape Town Tramways Co (1902)).
• Defendant must know or ought to reasonably foresee damage of the relevant kind might be a consequence of the escape (Cambridge Water).
  

Defences

• Common benefit: no liability if source of danger is kept for both defendant and claimants benefit (Dunne v North West Gas Board (1964)).
• Act of a stranger: if a stranger over whom defendant exercises no control causes the escape then no liability (Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956)).
• Statutory authority: if the escape is a direct result of carrying out the duty (Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894)).
• Contributory negligence: damages reduced if claimant is partly at fault for the escape (Eastern Telegraph v Cape Town Tramways (1902)).

Read v Lyons [1947]

• HL held the rule of Ryland v Fletcher did not apply as an escape under this rule means ‘an escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control.