Self-test questions: Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

. Which element listed below is not part of the definition of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

Non-natural use of the land

The Defendant brings on his land, collects and keeps something

Likely to do mischief if it escapes and it does escape

The damage is a direct and unjustifiable interference

The damage is reasonably foreseeable

. What is the definition of non-natural use of land, which can be found in Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]?

A use that the defendant does at his own peril?

Some special use bringing with it increased danger to others.

An exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing in extraordinary or unusual circumstances.

Not merely the ordinary use of land.

Use which is not proper for the general benefit of the community.

. A block of flats is built with a single water pipe designed to serve all flats. The water pipe is large to serve all flats in the building and the water supplied is at normal pressure. Unfortunately, the water pipe springs a leak, and the volume of water which escapes undermines the neighbour's wall causing it to collapse. What is the correct statement of the law?

The domestic supply of water to the flats cannot be said to be non-natural use of the land, therefore the rule in Rylands v Fletcher does not apply.

The supply of water for the flats through just one pipe, is a classic case of non-natural use of the land, so the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies.

The escape of water in this situation can only be due to negligence, and therefore the owner of the block of flats is liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability on the owner of the block of flats, and so the owner of the block of flats is liable.

The supply of water is clearly for the benefit of the general community, so the rule in Rylands v Fletcher does not apply.

. Daria has an unkempt garden and fails to keep it under control. There are a large amount of weeds growing in the garden and the seeds are blown by the wind into Clarry's neighbouring garden causing damage to the Clarry's vegetable patch. What is the correct statement of the law?

This a classic case of Rylands v Fletcher liability; something likely to cause mischief, escapes from Daria's land and causes foreseeable damage to Clarry's property.

Weeds are not something likely to cause mischief, so this cannot be Rylands v Fletcher liability.

The escape of weeds from Daria's land is a matter of strict liability for Rylands v Fletcher.

Failing to cut back weeds is negligent, so Daria is liable for foreseeable damage caused under Rylands v Fletcher.

Weeds are not an artificial use of the land as they grow naturally, so are not brought on to the land by the Daria, so there cannot be Rylands v Fletcher liability.

. Owen keeps crocodiles on his land in order to sell their skin to make into handbags. He has a bask of 25 crocodiles in a fenced pond in a field adjoining Rohan's land. There is a hedge on the border between the neighbouring properties. One day, the crocodiles trample the fences of the pond and escape on to Rohan's land, eating his prize cabbages. What is the correct statement of the law?

Crocodiles are not inherently dangerous or mischievous, so there can be no Rylands v Fletcher liability.

Keeping animals is not a non-natural user of the land, so there can be no Rylands v Fletcher liability.

Damaging property is not reasonably foreseeable, so even though keeping crocodiles is a non-natural use, in relation to their escape, there can be no Rylands v Fletcher liability.

Crocodiles are a mischief and potentially dangerous if they escape, and have been kept artificially on the land (as a non-natural use), when they escape, this will found Rylands v Fletcher liability.

The fact that the crocodiles have escaped, and caused foreseeable damage is a matter of strict liability and that is all that needs to be proved for Rylands v Fletcher liability.

. Chemstore is a company which stores large quantities of chemicals in their warehouses for use in the pharmaceutical industry for creating life-saving medicines. Finola lives next door and discovers that one of the chemical storage tanks has leaked into her garden and contaminated her garden pond, killing the expensive koi carp which live there. Can Finola successfully bring a claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

Yes, storage of chemicals is a non-natural use of land, inherently dangerous and mischievous and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, Chemstore are strictly liable for all consequences, so Finola can successfully claim.

Yes, storage of chemicals is a non-natural use of land, they were likely to cause mischief if they escaped and they did escape causing reasonably foreseeable damage to Finola's pond and fish.

No, storage of chemicals is a non-natural use of land but it was not reasonably foreseeable that they would escape, therefore Finola cannot claim.

No, storage of chemicals is a non-natural use of land, they were likely to cause mischief if they escaped and they did, but the damage is not reasonably foreseeable, because Chemstore could not have foreseen that Finola would have expensive koi carp in her pond.

No, the storage of chemicals is for the general good of the community and society in these circumstances, so Finola cannot argue that it is a non-natural use, therefore her claim will be unsuccessful.

. Chemstore is a company which stores large quantities of chemicals in their warehouses for use in the pharmaceutical industry for creating life-saving medicines. One of the chemical tanks leaks, pouring acid into the neighbouring property and leaving pools of acid on the lawn. Beatrice walks into her garden barefoot to water the plants and is unaware of the leaked acid. She suffers burns to her feet as a result of contact with the acid. Can Beatrice successfully claim for the injuries under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

No, Beatrice cannot claim as although the storage of chemicals is a non-natural use of land, they were likely to cause mischief if they escaped and they did escape, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher specifically excludes claims for personal injury.

No, Beatrice cannot claim as although storage of chemicals is a non-natural use of land, they were likely to cause mischief if they escaped and they did escape, damage to property would have been reasonably foreseeable, the injuries to her feet were not.

No, storage of chemicals is a non-natural use of land but it was not reasonably foreseeable that they would escape, therefore Beatrice cannot claim.

Yes, storage of chemicals is a non-natural use of land, inherently dangerous and mischievous and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, Chemstore are strictly liable for all consequences, so Beatrice can successfully claim.

Yes, storage of chemicals is a non-natural use of land, they were likely to cause mischief if they escaped and they did escape causing reasonably foreseeable damage to Beatrice's property and person.

. Cameron is a livestock farmer who suffered loss and damage as a result of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in cattle generally. Dori's laboratory was the source of the FMD outbreak and it infected cattle in the area, although not specifically Cameron's cattle. Dori was working on the FMD virus in her laboratory, but samples of the FMD virus escaped through the drains on to neighbouring land. Cameron's cattle were unharmed (neither infected nor exposed to the risk of infection) but he suffered loss and damage as a result of restrictions brought in to curb the spread of FMD, including the loss of profit due to his inability to sell his animals and the additional costs of keeping the cattle which he would otherwise have sold. Can Cameron bring a successful claim against Dori?

No, Cameron cannot claim as the virus escaping on to neighbouring land caused mischief but, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher specifically excludes claims for pure economic losses.

No, Cameron cannot claim as although storage of a virus could be considered a non-natural use of land, the virus was likely to cause mischief if it escaped and it did escape, damage to property would have been reasonably foreseeable, but the financial losses were not reasonably foreseeable.

No, storage of a virus is not a non-natural use of land, so the claim in Rylands v Fletcher fails.

Yes, storage of a virus is a non-natural use of land, inherently dangerous and mischievous and under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, Dori is strictly liable for all consequences, so Cameron can successfully claim.

Yes, storage of a virus is a non-natural use of land, it were likely to cause mischief if it escaped and it did escape, causing reasonably foreseeable damage to Cameron's business and he suffered reasonably foreseeable losses.

. Which defences did Blackburn J set out in the original judgment of Rylands v Fletcher which still apply to claims?

Escape caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger and escape caused by an act of God and illegal act of the Claimant.

Escape caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger and escape caused by an act of God and natural disasters.

Fault of the Claimant or express or implied consent of the Claimant.

Illegality or fault of the Claimant or express or implied consent of the Claimant.

Escape caused by the unforeseeable act of a stranger and escape caused by an act of God, or fault of the Claimant or express or implied consent of the Claimant.

. Priti has a tree in her garden which has poisonous berries hanging from it. The berries fall from the tree and gather on the ground near the boundary of the property Mikhael has a donkey which lives in his garden. One day the donkey leans over the fence and eats a large quantity of the berries on the ground, causing the donkey to get very ill and die. Can Mikhael bring a successful claim against Priti under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

Yes, Priti is strictly liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for keeping something capable of causing mischief on her land, which escaped causing reasonably foreseeable damage to Mikhael's property (namely his donkey).

Yes, Priti is liable here for the non-natural use of her land, with something which is likely to cause mischief if it escapes, which escapes from the tree, causing reasonably foreseeable damage to Mikhael's property.

No, the donkey has intruded on to Priti's land to eat the berries, therefore there is no escape from Priti's land and the harm caused is due to the donkey's own intrusion.

No, the donkey in leaning over Priti's land has trespassed on to her land, so she is not liable for any losses which may flow from this trespass, even if the berries had escaped on to Mikhael's property.

No, the donkey dying is akin to personal injury (rather than property damage), which is specifically excluded from a Rylands claim, so Mikhael will not succeed in his claim.

. Keir owned a flat which was flooded due to an overflowing bathtub on the top floor of the building which was owned by Baybridge District Council. The flooding was caused by someone leaving the tap on, and having deliberately blocked the wastepipe. Can Keir bring a successful claim against the Council under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

No, the Council can use the defence of an act of God, as water escaping falls within the broad category of acts of nature, so Keir's claim will not succeed.

No, the Council can use the defence of an escape being caused by the unforeseeable act of a third party to successfully defend Keir's claim.

Yes, the escape of water in this situation can only be due to negligence in failing to stop the third party blocking the bathtub, and therefore the Council as owner of the block of flats is liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Yes, Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability on the owner of the block of flats, and so the Council as owner of the block of flats is liable.

No, Keir cannot successfully claim, as the supply of water is clearly for the benefit of the general community, so the rule in Rylands v Fletcher does not apply.

. Becky has ornamental ponds on her land, which contain large quantities of water (collected from a stream which runs through the property, and which has been dammed). The levels of rainfall over the previous month have been the highest since records began, with an unprecedented month's worth of rain falling in just 2 days with no warning. This rainfall caused the banks of the ornamental pools to collapse and the water escaped on to Nandana's property destroying a wall and causing water damage to her garden furniture which was flooded. Can Nandana successfully bring a claim against Becky under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher ?

No, Becky can use the defence of an act of God, as the high levels of unexpected rainfall, leading to water escaping falls within the broad category of acts of nature, so Nandana's claim will not succeed as long as the rainfall was not reasonably foreseeable.

No, Becky can use the defence of an escape being caused by the unforeseeable act of a third party to successfully defend Nandana's claim.

Yes, the escape of water in this situation can only be due to negligence in failing to stop the pools overflowing, and therefore Becky as owner of the land is liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Yes, Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability on the owner of the land from which the water escapes, and so Becky is automatically liable.

Yes, the water is something which could cause mischief if it escapes and the pools are a non-natural user of the land. Becky should have reasonably foreseen the possibility of high rainfall and taken steps to prevent flooding. This failure to take preventative steps means that Nandana can bring a successful Rylands claim.

. Pietr is visiting his friend Rohan who lives next door to Owen, who keeps crocodiles on his land in order to sell their skin to make into handbags. Owen has a bask of 25 crocodiles in a fenced pond in a field adjoining Rohan's land. There is a hedge on the border between the neighbouring properties. One day, the crocodiles trample the fences of the pond and escape on to Rohan's land, and destroy Pietr's prize stamp collection which he has laid out on a table in the garden to show Rohan. What is the correct statement of the law?

Crocodiles are a mischief and potentially dangerous if they escape, and have been kept artificially on the land (as a non-natural use), when they escape, this will found Rylands v Fletcher liability as the damage to Pietr's property was reasonably foreseeable.

Crocodiles are a mischief and potentially dangerous if they escape, and have been kept artificially on the land (as a non-natural use), when they escape, this will found Rylands v Fletcher liability and Pietr has standing to bring the claim as a visitor to Rohan's property.

Crocodiles are a mischief and potentially dangerous if they escape, and have been kept artificially on the land (as a non-natural use), when they escape, this will found Rylands v Fletcher liability and Pietr lacks the standing to bring a claim as he is a visitor to the property.

Crocodiles are a mischief and potentially dangerous if they escape, and have been kept artificially on the land (as a non-natural use), when they escape, this will found Rylands v Fletcher liability, and there is no test of standing in this area of law.

Crocodiles are a mischief and potentially dangerous if they escape, and have been kept artificially on the land (as a non-natural use), when they escape, the damage to Pietr's property was not reasonably foreseeable, therefore this will not found liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

. Chemstore is a company which stores large quantities of chemicals in their warehouses for use in the pharmaceutical industry for creating life-saving medicines. One of the chemical tanks leaks and the chemicals spill on to the neighbouring properties. Which of the following people will be able to successfully claim against Chemstore under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

Arun who suffers breathing problems due to inhaling the chemicals which leak on to his property.

Bashir who wishes to claim for loss of profits for his business that he had to stop whilst waiting for the leaked chemicals to be cleared away from his property.

Cassie who was visiting the neighbouring property and suffered damage to her shoes, which she had left outside when the chemical leak occurred.

Daiana whose prize rose bushes are damaged and destroyed by the chemicals leaking on to her property.

Erin who lives 2 miles away and purchased the rose bushes for Daiana as part of a business venture she was starting up.

. Which case added the requirement that damage must be reasonably foreseeable, to the classic statement of Rylands v Fletcher liability?

Rickards v Lothian [1913]

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather Co [1994]

Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]

Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore [2012]

Northumbrian Water v Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd [2014]

Quiz Content