:: walk.with.me ::: The Rule in Blahlands and Blahtcher

So.

Because TAI JIN LING ~~attended to Cheng Beng-ly duties~~ refused to wake up for Sara's class last Friday, she missed out on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher class.

Hence, I have been called forth to demonstrate my note-taking prowess.
(which sadly does not have anything to do with my ability to retain said information at all)

I am still considering that kindy teaching job! *foolish mortal*

So make me proud, Ai Ren! ^^

Let us begin.

***

TAKE NOTE! (Sara's fave phrase lol)

The distinction between strict liability and fault liability
The elements that had made the distinction between strict liability and fault liability
Fault liability can only occur when there is a foreseeability of harm. Whereas strict liability can be imposed even if the defendants did not foresee the harm.

fault liability - carelessness on the defendant's part

In the tort of nuisance, the requirement such as the foreseeability of harm, the conduct of the defendants had suggested that this type of tort would be a fault liability tort.

Generally, any form of harm suffered by the plaintiff which falls within the ambit explained in

Hunter v Canary Wharf

an action can be taken under nuisance.

However, in the case of

Rylands v Fletcher [1865]

the Court, in determining the liability of the defendant, was not able to fulfill the requirement of fault liability as the Court could not discover the fault element on the facts. Hence, Justice Blackburn in establishing a liability against the defendant, which was affirmed in the House of Lords, created an extension to the tort of nuisance. This was eventually regarded as one of strict liability tort.

So the rule in R v F = extension of tort of nuisance; is a strict liability tort. Geddit.

When approaching a question, start with nuisance. Alternatively, refer to Rylands.

Facts of Rylands v Fletcher

The defendant employed independent constructor to construct a reservoir. Whilst digging, the contractor found it to be a disused mine, but failed to seal it properly. Later, the water flooded through the mine shafts into the plaintiff's property. In establishing the liability and affirmed by the HoL, Blackburn J laid down the following rule: (refer to Chapterpack, pg 1)

What Blackburn says in Rylands is veryvery important btw... 'Cause well, it is the bleeding rule in R v F.

Requirements in R v F

Defendant brought something onto his land (his land his land his land! Nobody else's land)
Non-natural use of the land
The thing was likely to do mischief if it escaped
The thing did escape, and caused damage.

1.) Escape

Definition of 'escape'

Read v Lyons (something about an ammunitions factory explosion)

Viscount Simon:
'Escape' is defined as escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control.

CHUP!

Sounds like Occupiers' Liability? Confused? Let's take a look.

R v F
occupational control
-harm must happen OUTSIDE defendant's land (of course, this applies to nuisance and negligence as well)

c/f

OLA
sufficient control
-harm occurs WITHIN defendant's premises

In 1994, the HoL, especially based on the decisions of Lord Goffe, came up with an additional requirement based on R v F, in the case of

Cambridge Water Works v Eastern Counties Leather [1994]

According to Lord Goffe, since the harm was not foreseeable, the liability could not be assured.

CHUP!

WTFish? Like, didn't you just say that R v F is supposed to be strict liability? What, does that mean that foreseeability's back in town?

(Now, I am absurdly proud of my note-taking capabilities, and I assure you that I didn't get that part wrong. :P)

Let us take a look at foreseeability.

i.) in R v F
-foreseeability that the substance can escape/not

ii.) of damage
-not required in R v F

Hence, R v F is still regarded as strict liability tort. :)

Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

clarified the requirements in R v F, which includes Lord Goffe's requirement of foreseeability.

So the requirements in R v F today now look like this:

Defendant brought something onto his land (his land his land his land! Nobody else's land)
Non-natural use of the land
The thing was likely to do mischief if it escaped
The thing did escape, and caused damage.

Foreseeability of the escape of the substance (Lord Goffe, Cambridge Water Works, 1994)

2.) Non-natural use of the land

Things grown or occurring naturally in the land
c/f defendant bringing something onto his land

Something can be regarded as non-natural user of the land in one case but not necessarily in another i.e. it's pretty subjective (Lord Porter, Read v Lyons, Chapterpack pg 3)

Re: Transco plc
According to Lord Hoffman, a 'non-natural user' means that the defendant's use created an increased risk

Ellison v Minister of Defence [1997]

-non-natural user of the land
In this case, the court stated that the flood occurred as a result of rainwater; it is not a non-natural user of the land.

3.) Damage

If there is no damage, because the plaintiff took steps to prevent it, then he can claim for the amount used to prevent the damage that would have happened.

The damage here refers to the land or to chattels.

Halsey v Esso Petroleum [1961]

The courts are generally not in favour of allowing a claim for pure economic loss.

Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966]

In the case of

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Lord Hoffman stated that damages for personal injury per se would not be recoverable either under nuisance or R v F.

Defences

Tennent v Earl of Glasgow (re: Act of God)

-Lord Westbury:
"An act of God is an event which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility."

TAKE NOTE:

Rylands v Fletcher, Blackburn's rule (CP pg 1)
Transco plc (CP pg 1)
British Celanese (CP pg 2)
Weller v Foot and Mouth (CP pg 2)
Rickards v Lothian (CP pg 3)
Lord Porter in Read v Lyons (CP pg 3)
Rainham Chemical v Belvedere Fish Guano (CP pg 3)
Noble v Harrison c/f Cowhurst v Amersham (CP pg 3) -it would be more practical to pursue under Nuisance.
Consent of the plaintiff and Common benefit (CP pg 4) -are specific defences under R v F -can be regarded as overlapping as CB is usually only any good only if CotP is satisfied first
Perry v Kendricks c/f Hale v Jennings (CP pg 4)
Nichols v Marsland c/f Greenock Corp. (CP pg 4) -in Nichols exceptionally heavy rain can be regarded as a good defence but Greenock disagrees -it is a direct contrast; neither was overruled, so dua-dua pun boleh pakai
Default of the plaintiff (CP pg 4) -if the plaintiff is aware but does nothing to contain the problem
Statutory authority (CP pg 5) -good defence.