Principle: Imposing liability to an owner or occupier of land for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous thing from the

land, regardless
of whether or not the owner or occupier was negligent. A form of strict liability for a risky or dangerous thing accumulated on the land.

Facts: The bursting reservoir case. D owned a mill and wanted a reservior to be built on the land. Independent contractors were called to do
the work. During the work, the contractors found unused mindshafts on the land. There was a mine next door. When the reservoir was filled, it
burst and filled the mine next door.

Decision:
1)Exchequer Decision: In the original hearing there was no liability except that Baron Bramwell disagreed and held the flood would lead to
liability, a form of strict liability. The person who was responsible for collecting the water on the land would be responsible for all the
natural consequences of the escape of it.
2)Exchequer Chamber: The person 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 at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape. (Blackburn J. p 279).that is the rule. It was upheld in the HOL.
3) HOL:

Ultimate lady v The ship "Norhtern Challenger"

Basic requirement:
1) Occupier Liability
2) Strict Liability
3) Non-natural use of the land.
4) Isolated acts
5) The keeping of dangerous things

1) The decision and its antecedents

Benning v Wong -Distinctions between

actionable nuisances of traditional kinds and
Rylands v Fletcher actions are not fundamental.
Read v Lyons- Two branches of law, law of nuisance and the law of Rylands
v Fletcher might in most cases be invoked indifferently. They are
interchangeable. (Case that involved whether occupiers of a amunitions
factory would be liable to an employee who was injured in an explosion that
happened on the premises. Use of land held to be natural during wartime.
Rylands v Fletcher did not apply to personal injury)
Cambridge Water Co. V Eastern Counties Leather Plc- More coherent if the
rule in Rylands v Fletcher were to be regarded as an extension of the law of
nuisance to apply to isolated escapes from land even though the rule as
established is not limited to isolated escapes. (Water being contaminated case.
Determined that isolated escapes could be an actionable nuisance. No new law
created) UK- Rylands v Fletcher=special kind of nuisance.

R v F overlaid with qualifications and alterations-introduced uncertainty

content and application of the rule (Weakened and confined)
Ordinary rules of negligences-assumed dominion-proximity was the
underlying theme under the law of negligence (allows it to cover
situations that were covered by RvF)
Law of negligence covers 1) A non-delegable standard of care 2) A
variable standard of care under which the magnitude of danger may
heighten the degree of care. Both go to strict liability. The higher the
danger, thehigher the degree of care necessary.

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather plc- Foreseeability of

damage of the relevant type should be regarded as a prerequisite of
liability in damages under the rule in R v F
Burnie Port authority v General Jones- HCA said that the rule in R v F has
become so qualified and the principles in the law of negligence have been
developed to such an extent that negligence will now confer a remedy in
practically all cases of liability under the rule in R v F. (R v F obsolete) (Involved
a port company authority that owned cool rooms-independent contract was
delegated work in which a fire broke out in the cool rooms and destroyed frozen
vegetables that were stored.)

Nuisance: In order to succeed under R v F, there would also be an

entitlement to succeed in nuisance

2) The Relationship with nuisance and negligence

1) Criminal Liability

Rule in Rylands v Fletcher- Isolated

flowing current of water case. Concerns as to
whether this fits into NZ law.

Negligence: Whether or not the rule has been absorbed by the

ordinary principles of negligence. The rule in R v F appears to have
been qualified to reflect on aspects of ordinary law of negligence.
Australia: R v F qualified (can argue that negligence could be the
approach to Rylands v Fletcher in Aus)

Public Nuisance: A nuisance which is so widespread in its range and

effects it would not be reasonable to expect one person to take proceedings
to stop it, so that an action on behalf of the general public may be brought.
But where a person has suffered particular damage over and above the
general inconvenience suffered by the public, she or he is able to bring a
claim in tort. The tort covers such areas as use of public highways and
waterways, public health and safety, public morality and general comfort and
convenience of members of the public.

Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council- Issue raised-Where why

do we need strict liability in relation for land when we do not have it for personal
injury? Personal injury is more damaging than property. Ursular believes that this is
not confronted. She argues that we do not need R v F- looks toward Burnie's
approach. (Transco went through every aspect of R v F- Ursular thinks this decision
is problematic)

Minority judgement in Autex v Auckland CC-R v F part of law of nuisance. Minority

discussion- Why R v F should be maintained as a special form of nuisance. We need
strict liability for land (Increased complexity and technology in society. If merely relying
on negligence=no remedy. Insurance usually covers this.

R v Johnson- Public nuisance is made up of

obscene telephone calls on hundreds of
occasions to at least 13 women.
Crimes Act 1961, s145.
Criminal nuisance (1) Every one commits criminal nuisance who does any unlawful act or omits to discharge
any legal duty, such act or omission being one which he knew would endanger the lives,
safety, or health of the public, or the life, safety, or health of any individual.
(2) Every one who commits criminal nuisance is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding one year.

R v Mwai- Section drawn in wider terms than the common law

offence of public/common nuisance which limit acts to the public.
(Man sleeping with woman without telling her he has aids.)
R v Anderson- Creates an offence of recklessness. Negligence would
be inconsistent with a criminal statute.(Man killed in cycling race.
Prosecution for criminal nuisance brought against organiser.
Convicted but won appeal.)

Hamilton & Anor v Papakura district Council & Anor- Rylands regarded as a form of
nuisance. Foreseeability taken as an elemennt necessary to establish liability under
Rylands. Once shown thtat damage was foreseeable, it is irrelevant that the actual act
causing the damage was not the fault of the D/ the D acted with reasonable skill and
care.

AG v PYA Quarries (ER)- Public nuisance defined: Widespread in range or so indiscriminate in

its effect that it would not be reasonable to expect 1 person to take proceedings on his own
responsibility to put a stop to it, but that it should be taken on the responsibility of the
community at large. Any nuisance deemed public which materially affects the reasonable comfort and
convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects.Not necessary to prove that every member of that
class has been injuriously affected-sufficient to show that a representative cross-section of the class has
been affected.

Summary Offences Act 1981 ss32-38

2) Civil Proceedings

s9 Crimes Act 1961- abolishes any other common law

crimes. Arguable that it abolishes nuisance as it arose as a
common law crime in the UK. Not mentioned in civil law.
AG/local authorities/Private individuals may bring such
an action- Same requirements as private claims:
1)Fault is necessary
2)Action must be unreasonable and forseeability of the
kind of damage required. (Almost always covered by
negligence)

3) Why retain public nuisance?

1) AG can sue has its advantages where individuals are unable to or do not want to do it
2) Private citizen can obtain an injunction where they have suffered special damage;
3) Can recover for pure economic loss for interference with public rights. you cannot do that
for private nuisance.
Why bother with it especially since negligence covers the ground?

New Zealand Approach

AG v Abraham & Williams (NZ)- Action against owners of land

used as cattle and sheep yards for smell and danger to health as
the yard was within the boundaries of the township. Tolerance
was expected because of the long history of the yards. Standard
of comfort might be different for different localities- Injunction
eventually granted but suspended for 1 year to allow for clean
up.

1) Action by Attorney-General:
The AG has the right in asserting public right.
May act personally or by a relator action ( AG on the relation on individuals
including companies and local authorites bring an action to assert public right.
Acting on behalf

2) Action by an affected individual: If the

individual can show 'special damage' /
'particular damage' above and beyond
suffered by the general public, a private action
may be brought.

Qualification as to the sufficient number of subjects to be classed as being

affected by a public nuisance- This is unclear.
A-G v Harney Speedways- Noise created by a speedway-Referred to quarry
case. A relator brought action on behalf of 7 neighbours. Held to be sufficient.
A-G v Orange Productions- Complain about an aticipated rock concert. Unclear
if a large group of people had been affected.
There will be a public nuisance even if one or two people are affected if it is a substantial
interference with a right enjoyed by the public. -Coldicutt v Ffowcs-Williams

1) Creation of a continuing interference with

public rights and liability is strict.

Hamilton v Papakura DC and Watercare Services-Special form of nuisance that extend

strict liability to situations where damage results from an isolated escape of something
harmful to the D's land.
R v F shares much with nuisance
-Only a person with a possessory or proprietary interest in land can sue.
-The D must have elusive occupation of or control over land from which there is an escape.
-Measure of damages is diminution (reduction)/loss of amenity value of the land. Physical injury to
chattels and economic loss is recoverable as consequential loss.
-Foreseeability of harm is required as for nuisance.
-Liability is strict as negligence need not be proven.
-Non-natural use is a feature of Rylands.

3) Summary on the nature of Rylands

2) Failing to abate a continuing offence with

public rights created by third parties or
arising from natural causes. -Creates a duty to
take reasonable steps to abate a public nuisance
which you have not created. Applies if you
occupe the land/ adopt/ assume control of the
source of public nuisance:

This does not apply to the requirement

for non-natural use of land

3) Isolated accidental events on the highway/

navigable waters leading to physical injury to
the P/ his/her property. Require proof of
ordinary negligence.

Hazelwood v Webber (1934) 52 CLR 268.

Read v Lyons [1947] AC 156.
Tock v St Johns Metropolitan Area Board (1989
Cambridge Water [1994].

1) Complete default of the P- If the escape is

solely due to the P, the D is not liable. Not the
same as contributory negligence as the P here
has to be solely liable. -Dunn v Birmingham
Canal.
Greenock Corp v Caledonian Ry-But for the act of man
there would have been no damage from the act of God.
Nichols v Marshland- Successful. Ursular this that the
principle will not longer be easy to argue. Rare for damage
of this kind to arise without human intervention.
Simpson v AG- Flood damage. Ministry of works constructed
drainage system but the drain overflowed in heavy rainstorms. The
drain was an intervention of human. Defence argument that it was an
act of God-rejected because the C said that the flooding was caused
by D's changing the path allowing the water flow to travel.
Eriksen v Clifton- Liability of occupier is founded on the use to which he puts his property.
Occupier must have some measure of control. (P got another party to come onto her land to
which they were going to light a fire to burn off gas. She informed neighbours and arranged
for a permit and safety precautions and authorised the 3rd party to come into the property
to inspect the property and work out whats the best way of carrying out work. 3rd party lit
practice fire (frolic of his own). The fire was not of the occupier-she did not have a duty to
control. Third person seen as a stranger as they had been on a frolic of their own)

escape occurs naturally, without human

intervention and could not have been foreseen or
guarded against, this defence could arise.Given
the encroachment of negligence principles, it has
probably been replaced by foreseeability of harm
principle

3) Act of a Stranger- If escape of the thing

is due to an act of a third party, there may be a
defence where the third party is not an
independent contractor/employee/agent for
whom one is vicariously liable. 2 Tests: 1) Where
the third party is on a frolic of his own where
foreseeability is relevant 2) Stricter test of
potential control. Third parties act must be
conscious and deliberate.

Less strict approach: Purakanui v Kent & Patrick- Mr Reid living on D's land in a caravan. He
was not employed by them but he lit some cut grass. Fire spread and caused damage to the
neighbouring land. Arguable that D was a stranger (he was living there with consent) They
considered him as a stranger here. Ursular thinks this is a more modern approach.

Fire also suited for R v F. Approach to fire is modified.

There was no liability for fires which accidentally began
because it was seen as too harsh to apply a strict liability to that
circumstance.
Now, an occupier will be liable for an escape of a deliberately
lit fire ONLY if the P can prove that the occupier/someone for
whom the occupier is responsible was negligent in lighting the
fire or allowing it to spread, or that the lighting of the fire
amounts to a non-natural use of the land so as to attract strict
liability under R v F.

Benning v Wong- Onus on D to show that the proximate cause of damage is the malicious
act of the third party against which no precautions which could reasonably have been taken
would have been of use.

Holderness v Goslin-Issue around fires that got out of control due to gass burn off. The test :
The power of control which the occupier has over the person who came onto the property and
committed the tortious act. Once the power exists to control activities of the visitor or licensee,
even if the power is not exercised, the licensee or visitor ceases to be a visitor
Catergory of visitors is small-have ability to control. Only trespasses that you have no idea are
on the land,

That are a couple of new defences that were

developed for R v F.

2) Act of God (Natural causes)- Where

Emmanuel v GLC (ER)- Imposed a tougher approach. GLC was liable for a fire that had
escaped. Independent contractor was demolishing some buildings for D and the contractors
had burnt some rubbish as part of how they carried out their work. The D council knew of
this- had an agreement that they were forbidden to burn of rubbish. They did so anyway.
Held by Denning that the occupier was liable for the escape of the fire which is due to the
negligence of anyone other than a stranger. A stranger would be any person who in lighting
a fire/ allowing it to escape acts contrary to anything which the occupier could anticipate
that he would do.

Perry v Kendricks-Relevance of the exception is that the stranger is regarded as a person

over whose acts the occupier of the land has no control. The real cause of the escape is not
the occupier's action /failure of his part/ agents on keeping the dangerous thing on the land/
nor is it due to any latent/ patent defect in his protective measures. The real cause is the act
of the stranger for whose acts the occupier of the land is not responsible for because he
cannot control them.

4. Defences-All those that apply to nuisance.

1) The D brought into his land things likely to catch fire, and
kept them such that if they did ignite, the fire would be
likely to spread to the P's land.
2) This was done in the course of a non-natural use of the
land.
3) The thing ignited and the fire spread.

Where a fire that ignites from unknown/natural causes ( no

intention or negligence) from combustible material brought into
D's land for a non-natural use and escapes without negligence,
liability is based on a modified version of R v F which sets out 3
conditions. -Burnie Port Auhtority v General Jones

5. Liability for the escape of fire.

A) Widespread private nuisances

AG v Abraham & Williams
B) Unreasonable obstruction of the highway. When public
highways are concerned, it is accepted that some obstruction
may be necessary.
Cases which involves large queues of people thar obstruct entry into
other adjoining businesses. An injunction may be granted for the
obstruction of pathways:
Amalgamated Theatres v Charles S Luney
Lyons v Gulliver
Large operations like a dock. Recognized that people have to put up
with a certain amount of activity.
Tate & Lyle Industries (ER)- Involved a business along the
river thames which were prevented from operating their
businesses as the London council has failed to make sure that
the river was drenched. Owners were unable to retrieve their
products from across the river. River is regarded as a public
highway-obstruction=Public nuisance.
Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc- Pigeons were
roosting on D's railway bridge and fouling the pavement below to an
extent that it was impassable by the public. Railway company did
nothing about it- council brought action against the railway company.