WJEC/Eduqas Law for A level Book 2 Revision Guide

Chapter 2 The law of tort Activity 2.2 Applying Rylands v Fletcher Read the evaluation notes and use them to write a sample essay that will answer the question. Remember to structure your response with an introduction, reasoned arguments and a conclusion. Note that R v F = Rylands v Fletcher (1868) , C = claimant, D = defendant and H of L = House of Lords. Discuss the arguments that, in the tort of Rylands v Fletcher , judges have created so many separate requirements and so many defences that there is little chance of pursuing a successful claim. • As it’s a strict liability tort where C doesn’t have to prove defendant is at fault, it should be much easier for C to successfully bring a claim. It’s certainly easier than bringing a claim in negligence. • But D is allowed to use various defences so R v F action is not really a strict liability tort at all. This makes it harder for C to make a successful claim. • Requirement that D must use land in ‘unnatural’ way adds to C’s problems. Simplest way for D to defeat claim is to show a natural use of land. • R v F rule has been further restricted: • D is only liable if whatever is stored on their land escapes: Read v Lyons (1947), Wyvern Tyres (2012) • AND it causes foreseeable damage to C’s land: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994) . In saying damage to C’s land was unforeseeable in Cambridge Water, H of L ’sealed the fate of an already moribund tort’, and this has meant even fewer R v F claims! • R v F doesn’t cover any situation that isn’t already covered in other areas of tort, like negligence and private nuisance, so it’s not really needed. In 1994, Australian High Court said R v F would be part of negligence. Cambridge Water described it as a type of private nuisance. As far back as 1978, Pearson Commission recommended R v F rule should be abolished. • Parliament has created statute law to replace R v F in some areas, where C is expected to take action using statute, rather than R v F claim, i.e.: • Reservoirs Act 1975 covers escape of accumulated water • Nuclear Installations Acts 1965 and 1969 covers escape of radioactive substances. • H of L reviewed law on R v F in Transco v Stockport Borough Council (2003) : ‘natural’ use of land should now be interpreted as ‘ordinary’ use of land, so R v F rule will only apply if defendant ’s use of land is extraordinary and unusual. This will make it harder still for claimant’s claim to succeed. • H of L had opportunity to abolish R v F rule in Transco case, but chose not to – said it’s been in existence for 150 years and, if someone wants to get rid of it, it should be Parliament, not the courts. • Claimant cannot claim damages for personal injury in R v F action (obiter comment in H of L Transco case above) – this further limits the tort’s usefulness. 32