Rylands v Fletcher Case Analysis
TUTORIAL 14 – WRITTEN OPINION
TO : ALEC DAWSON
FROM : KAREN REBECCA EDWARDS
RE : LEGAL EAGLES
Summary of Facts
I am asked by the owner of The Friday Shop and the owners of the apartments (Claimants) to write an opinion to establish if they are able to claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1,100,000 based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Rylands v Fletcher (R v. F) is based on the doctrine of Strict Liability. This means that the defendant is liable for all damages caused by engaging in hazardous of dangerous activities. Blackburn J at 279 states “We think that the true rule of the law is, that the personal who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of the escape” This rule was on appeal amended to add another element - that the use of the land be “non-natural”.
In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL), the rule was amended to include that the damage created was “foreseeable” This rule was further endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265.
Non-Natural Use of Land
Lord Goff in Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather “that the storage of substantial quantities of chemicals on industrial premises should be regarded as an almost classic case of non-natural use”. Taking this approach, it is “non-natural” for a research facility to be in the vicinity of a residential area. In addition, the storage of specialty bugs in large quantities (as seen by the development of the borer bugs), would cause mischief if it escapes regardless of the way in which it escapes.
In addition, the facts suggest that the borer bugs were not naturally there and was “brought” to the facility by means of breeding. This would also suggest that
TO : ALEC DAWSON
FROM : KAREN REBECCA EDWARDS
RE : LEGAL EAGLES
Summary of Facts
I am asked by the owner of The Friday Shop and the owners of the apartments (Claimants) to write an opinion to establish if they are able to claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1,100,000 based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Rylands v Fletcher (R v. F) is based on the doctrine of Strict Liability. This means that the defendant is liable for all damages caused by engaging in hazardous of dangerous activities. Blackburn J at 279 states “We think that the true rule of the law is, that the personal who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of the escape” This rule was on appeal amended to add another element - that the use of the land be “non-natural”.
In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL), the rule was amended to include that the damage created was “foreseeable” This rule was further endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Hamilton v Papakura District Council [2000] 1 NZLR 265.
Non-Natural Use of Land
Lord Goff in Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather “that the storage of substantial quantities of chemicals on industrial premises should be regarded as an almost classic case of non-natural use”. Taking this approach, it is “non-natural” for a research facility to be in the vicinity of a residential area. In addition, the storage of specialty bugs in large quantities (as seen by the development of the borer bugs), would cause mischief if it escapes regardless of the way in which it escapes.
In addition, the facts suggest that the borer bugs were not naturally there and was “brought” to the facility by means of breeding. This would also suggest that
References: Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather PLC, 2 WLR 53 (House of Lords 1994). John Rylands and Thomas Fletcher (R v Fletcher), L.R 3 H.L. 330 (House of Lords 1868). New Zealand Forest Products Ltd and Another v O 'Sullivan, 2 NZLR 80 (Supreme Court, Hamilton 1974). Read v J Lyons & Company, Limited, A.C 156 (House of Lords 1947).