Rylands Vs Fletcher

Danniboo

Hi,

I'm having trouble getting my head around this. In the initial case though the contractors were negligent and flooded the mine shafts, the owner was deemed liable. I'm getting conflicting information from the literature regarding whether the owner of the premises is liable of the person who is responsible for the accumulation (if it is not the owner themselves). Eg, a Castle holds an event, they hire event planners who bring on man made lakes. A pipe bursts and the car park, peoples vehicles etc are flooded. A solicitor advises the Castle to sue the event planners. Under the initial Rylands Vs Fletcher case would it not be the Castle who are responsible???

Tom Young

Is this an essay or problem question?

Danniboo

Tom Young wrote: »

Is this an essay or problem question?

Sorry should have been more specific it's for an exam question.

GeorgeOrwell

Under Rylands v. Fletcher, the person who accumulated the danger would be responsible.

There's probably an occupiers' liability issue here, but if the owners weren't responsible for the accumulation of the danger or the risk of escape and injury, then they can't surely be liable for it.

Procrastastudy

GeorgeOrwell wrote: »

Under Rylands v. Fletcher, the person who accumulated the danger would be responsible.

There's probably an occupiers' liability issue here, but if the owners weren't responsible for the accumulation of the danger or the risk of escape and injury, then they can't surely be liable for it.

Occupiers Liability only applies to their own land and damage on that land. Rylands can't apply on your own land so I'd say the two are mutually exclusive.

GeorgeOrwell

Good point.

Danniboo

GeorgeOrwell wrote: »

Under Rylands v. Fletcher, the person who accumulated the danger would be responsible.

There's probably an occupiers' liability issue here, but if the owners weren't responsible for the accumulation of the danger or the risk of escape and injury, then they can't surely be liable for it.

Thanks for that. Surely though in the case of the Castle permitted the Event planners to bring the accumulation on to the land, which was a large amount of water deemed as "non-natural" use they would have some liability.

Victor

The castle owners may have a liability to third parties, but the event organisers have a liability to the castle owners (and third parties).

Of course, the event organisers would probably use sub-contractors and it would be they or their insurers who would ultimately pick up the bill. Of course, the sub-contractors would try to disclaim any liability, they were building ponds to instruction and they couldn't be expected to know the pond was positioned uphill of a car park that had no drainage.

PS What does the contract say? And who has insurance?

Danniboo

Would that come under Rylands???

Procrastastudy

No Victor is being very real world. You need to look at the criteria for Rylands and take each individually. Does it fall down anywhere. Compare it to the OLA on contractor liability for extra marks. If its not Rylands is it basic nuisance negligence?

Procrastastudy

Also...

If the car park belongs to the castle its not Rylands.

If the car park is not owned by the castle and there was consent for them being there its not Rylands.

If the car ownwes are the plaintiffs its not Rylands. Maybe you could post the queation.

I see now where George was going with OLA - Sorry George.

Just read it again - that question as posed above is not Rylands.

Danniboo

Leave it to the Experts Event Planners (LEEP) were asked to organise the opening event for the Small Boat Race Festival, which was scheduled to take place in Galway. The launch night is being held in Furbo Castle. LEEP have had man-made lakes and ponds constructed around the Castle. Four boat teams are to compete in a short race in the lakes as part of the opening party, and in that regard dinghy’s and small sail boats have been placed in the lakes and ponds.
On the night of the party, a water pipe, which was used to fill the ponds and lakes, burst and consequently this resulted in flooding in the underground car-park. Two coaches have been flooded and their engines have completely seized up. The main road has also been affected. Additionally there is a housing estate beside the Castle and all the houses in there have become flooded. Furthermore oil leaked from two of the small sail boats and has caused damaged to the Castle’s vegetable patch.
The Castle, the owners of the coaches in the car-park and the local property owners have been advised by their solicitors to bring an action against LEEP under Rylands v Fletcher (1868), for the damage caused by the flooding, to the vegetable patch and the coaches.

Evaluate the pre-requisites of a Rylands v Fletcher (1868) action, and in light of this




Right this is the question that I was looking at and here's what im thinking on it, maybe you could steer me in the right direction:

1. The car park being flooded wouldn't come under Rylands

2. The main road/housing estates being damaged would come under Rylands and LEEP could be held responsible

3. LEEP could use consent/waiver as their defence, though the plaintiff (castle occupier) could use partial defence that it only consented to a small element.

4. It could be argued whether the oil leaking from the dingys was due to non-natural use and that the accumulation was in fact just the water and the oil leak might not have been reasonably foreseable. Also this would not come under Rylands?

Procrastastudy

My first piece of advice would be get a better solicitor. I really don't see how the castle could claim under Rylands. The Castle claiming seems barred by Read v. Lyons [1947] A.C. 156.

I'm afraid I'm only studying the topic myself but you'd have to do a lot of hedging in the question because of lack of information in it. E.g. if the car park is owned by the castle blah blah if it isn't blah blah. Hopefully someone with more knowledge will come along and give you (and me!) a better answer.

4. Doesn't come under Rylands.

and I think you're right on 1 and 2

3. No clue

Procrastastudy

Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty. Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520

Is that case any use OP?

Danniboo

Well i'm glad i'm not the only one who thought it was a bit of an unclear question:) Will have a look at those cases now. The very principle of the law states that the owner was found liable despite contractors negligence, and if the contractors were aware of the mine shafts and carried on regardless, would that not amount to trespass?

Now we're being told either people with express permission or the owner/occupier can be liable???? What's the criteria for measuring either/or??????

Procrastastudy

Well was Fletcher the owner or the contractor?

No it can't be trespass.

Oh here's something to confuse you a bit more - could the boat race be said to be benefiting the wider community?

Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 A.C. 264

The above case being a critism of the rule.

Tom Young

Try Superquinn v Bray UDC and Ors. [1998] IEHC 28 for Laffoy J's analysis of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and the dismissal of the action vis Act of God.

Danniboo

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Well was Fletcher the owner or the contractor?

No it can't be trespass.

Oh here's something to confuse you a bit more - could the boat race be said to be benefiting the wider community?

Cambridge Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 A.C. 264

The above case being a critism of the rule.

The boat race???? This case is about a leather company spilling a chemical solvent and getting in to a water supply. Or am I missing something???

Danniboo

Tom Young wrote: »

Try Superquinn v Bray UDC and Ors. [1998] IEHC 28 for Laffoy J's analysis of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and the dismissal of the action vis Act of God.

Yeah i'd read that one i'll be bringing it in;)

BornToKill

Danniboo wrote: »

Furthermore oil leaked from two of the small sail boats

Oil ... from a sail boat?

Danniboo

BornToKill wrote: »

Oil ... from a sail boat?

Oh, lol, thought you were referring to the Cambridge case.

Yeah I guess it could don't know how that would be relevant though,

My exam is tomorrow, be nice:eek:

Danniboo

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Well was Fletcher the owner or the contractor?

Facts: Rylands (D) possessed a piece of property but did not have rights to the mines and veins of coal under the surface. Fletcher (P) possessed coal mines located near Ryland’s property. D constructed a reservoir on his property above an abandoned coal mine that was connected to P’s mines below the surface. The shafts of the abandoned mine below D’s property had been filled in with soil and D did not know or suspect that there was an abandoned mine below the surface.

When the reservoir was filled, water flowed into P’s mines causing the mine to shut down. P sued D for damages and lost profits.

Procrastastudy

BornToKill wrote: »

Oil ... from a sail boat?

Sail boats generally have engines but a dingy wouldn't - this really is a silly question imho! The OP will hopefully get a better one on the exam at least.

There was an exception to the rule for things that benefited the public the case I linked critises that. I'm not sure if it still stands.

BornToKill

Danniboo wrote: »

My exam is tomorrow, be nice:eek:

The key for me with Rylands is that you must have brought something 'unnatural' (and the definition of that changes over time) onto your property. You are liable for the escape of that thing onto another property. Rare, old fashioned and probably has scope to be abolished. That's not to say it won't find its way onto your exam. Speaking of which; good luck with it tomorrow. My unsolicted advice - now is the time for revision and not new learning. Get off the internet!

Milk & Honey

Rylands and Fletcher was decided decades before Donoghue and Stephenson and has to be read in that context. It is not nuisance because it was not repeated and it was not trespass because it was not intentional. The tort of negligence was not of general application at the time so this rule was invented to give a remedy to the injured party.

Victor

BornToKill wrote: »

Oil ... from a sail boat?

The facts are the facts, you can't dispute them. You can however consider the foreseeability of material amounts of oil on sail boats.

Danniboo

Hey boardsies think the exam went well/okay. Thanks for all your advice, it was very helpful.