|
Papers > Miscellaneous > Tort Law The concept of Rylands v Fletcher
Featured Papers from Direct Essays |
|||
1. Prejudices in Society and Law
|
|||
This is a preview of a paper to view the full text you need to signup and login.
Tort Law The concept of Rylands v Fletcher |
|||
|
In order to establish what is meant by the concept in Rylands v Fletcher stated by Lord Cairns that liability there under would only arise when the accumulation amounted to a non-natural use of land, one needs to examine the case, then trace its development in case law to the present day. The rule laid down in Rylands v Fletcher is the best-known example of a tort imposing strict liability. ... The case of Rylands v Fletcher involved D a mill owner, who paid independent contractors to make a reservoir on his land, with the intention of supplying water to the mill. ... Trespassing was another action that was unavailable, because the damage was not direct and immediate, and at the time of the case, the tort of nuisance could not be applied to an isolated escape. Nonetheless, Lord Cairns held that the defendant was liable in tort, upholding the judgement delivered in a lower court by Blackburn J, which defined the rule: ‘A person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must do so at their peril, and, if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. ... At this time Lord Cairn’s addition to Blackburn J’s formulation seemed harmless but the rule gave rise to one of the most frustrating questions in relation to Rylands v Fletcher liability: what is the essence of ‘a non-natural use’ of land? ... As was in the case of Crowhurst v Aversham Burial Board where it was held not be on the facts of the case, the defendants had planted a yew tree on their land, then as it grew the branches protruded over into the adjoining land, where cattle were bred. ... The defendants were held liable under Rylands v Fletcher on the basis that of the facts planting a yew tree was not a natural use of the land. ... Cases decided subsequently restricted the tort by imposing so many conditions to its application, for example in the case of Rickards v Lothian. ... Lord Moulton and his fellow Lordships ruled that the defendant was not liable on the principle of Rylands v Fletcher because the defendant couldn’t control the wrongful actions of a third party. Lord Moulton added another ground upon which him and his Lordships believed did not relate to the principle laid down in Rylands v Fletcher. ... v Cape Town Tramways Companies on the principle of Rylands v Fletcher “subjects to a high liability the owner who uses his property for purposes other than those which are natural”. Wright J in the case of Blake v Woolf Stated that the general rule of Rylands v Fletcher is that prima facie a person occupying land has an absolute right not to have his premises invaded by injurious matter, ie large quantities of water whom a neighbour keeps upon their land. ... In Nichols v Marsland the defendant dammed a natural stream in his land, with the intention of creating three artificial lakes. |
|||
To link to this page, copy the following code to your site:
Paper Information |
|||||
Title: Tort Law The concept of Rylands v Fletcher
|
|||||
Signup & Login |
|||||
If you don't currently have a login then Signup here |
|||||
| Pre-Written Papers | |||||
|
|||||
| Custom Papers | |||||
|
|||||
Copyright 2003-2008 doingmyhomework.com. All rights reserved.