1-20 of 23 Results

  • Keyword: Rylands v Fletcher x
Clear all

Chapter

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter considers the issue of nuisance, particularly the case of Rylands v Fletcher. In order to answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: private nuisance: who can sue in private nuisance? who can be sued? and categories of nuisance (i.e. noise, vibrations, smells, etc.); public nuisance; the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR1 Exch 265; specific defences to claims of nuisance; and remedies available in nuisance.

Chapter

This chapter examines the rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868]. The rule holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier of that land is liable for the damage to another caused as a result of the escape, irrespective of fault. The rule today is best understood through a trilogy of cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] and Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]. The development of the rule has led to an increased overlap with ideas from nuisance and negligence.

Chapter

This chapter examines the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which is probably the best-known example of a strict liability tort in English law. It explains that the rule in this case highlighted various elements of the tort, such as non-natural use and escape, which must be present before liability can be imposed. It discusses criticisms of the rule, particularly about whether it really amounts to an instance of strict liability in tort, and considers the recent judicial view that it is merely a sub-branch of the law of private nuisance.

Chapter

Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter considers the issue of nuisance, particularly the case of Rylands v Fletcher. In order to answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: private nuisance: who can sue in private nuisance? who can be sued? and categories of nuisance (ie noise, vibrations, smells, etc); public nuisance; the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR1 Exch 265; specific defences to claims of nuisance; and remedies available in nuisance.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.

Chapter

This chapter first looks at the idea of there being a form of strict liability for the escape of things brought onto and kept on land, arising from the case of Rylands v Fletcher. It continues by looking at the concept of ‘adopting a nuisance’; that is, allowing a nuisance on land to continue or failing to remove a natural hazard on land that ought to have been removed or been attended to, for example in order to prevent a one-off escape. Cases in this area have led to the existence of a ‘measured duty of care’, seemingly bringing the land torts closer to negligence.

Chapter

This chapter examines the rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868]. The rule holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier of that land is liable for the damage to another caused as a result of the escape, irrespective of fault. The rule today is best understood through a trilogy of cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] and Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]. The development of the rule has led to an increased overlap with ideas from nuisance and negligence.

Chapter

Abstract This chapter discusses the law of nuisance. ‘Nuisance’ relates to three very different actions: private nuisance, public nuisance, and statutory nuisance. All three are land-related torts, occurring indirectly, and often concern neighbour disputes and environmental wrongs. Unlike negligence, in nuisance the law is concerned less with the nature of the defendant’s conduct than with its effect upon the claimant. Private nuisance must have an element of continuation and damages will not be recoverable for physical injury. The case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) established a new tort which provided for strict liability of defendants in certain nuisance-related situations.

Chapter

This chapter examines the two forms of nuisance action in modern law: public and private nuisance. Public nuisance is a crime which may give rise to tort liability. Private nuisance protects an occupier's right to use and enjoy her land free from unreasonable interferences. The chapter also discusses the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier is liable for damage to the property of another caused by the escape. This is so irrespective of whether the occupier has been at fault.

Chapter

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter analyses the rule in Rylands v Fletcher on liability for damage done by the escape of dangerous things accumulated on one’s land, regardless of fault. It considers the problem in overlap between negligence and strict liability, and how the tort of negligence can impose liability in situations far removed from cases of individual fault, including the situations covered by Rylands v Fletcher. After providing an overview of the case of Rylands v Fletcher and the origins and elements of the rule, the chapter looks at the rule and its categorization and boundaries today, paying particular attention to two major English cases that treat Rylands as an aspect of nuisance: Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco v Stockport MBC. Finally, it examines the Australian High Court’s decision in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd.

Chapter

This chapter examines the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which is probably the best-known example of a strict liability tort in English law. It explains that the rule in this case highlighted various elements of the tort, such as non-natural use and escape, which must be present before liability can be imposed. It discusses criticisms of the rule, particularly about whether it really amounts to an instance of strict liability in tort, and considers the recent judicial view that it is merely a sub-branch of the law of private nuisance. Comparison of the two torts would suggest that the Rylands tort is separate and distinct from private nuisance.

Chapter

This chapter first looks at the idea of there being a form of strict liability for the escape of things brought onto and kept on land, arising from the case of Rylands v Fletcher. It continues by looking at the concept of ‘adopting a nuisance’; that is, allowing a nuisance on land to continue or failing to remove a natural hazard on land that ought to have been removed or been attended to, for example in order to prevent a one-off escape. Cases in this area have led to the existence of a ‘measured duty of care’, seemingly bringing the land torts closer to negligence.

Chapter

This chapter discusses the law of nuisance. ‘Nuisance’ relates to three very different actions: private nuisance, public nuisance, and statutory nuisance. All three are land-related torts, occurring indirectly, and often concern neighbour disputes and environmental wrongs. Unlike negligence, in nuisance the law is concerned less with the nature of the defendant’s conduct than with its effect upon the claimant. Private nuisance must have an element of continuation and damages will not be recoverable for physical injury. The case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) established a new tort which provided for strict liability of defendants in certain nuisance-related situations.

Chapter

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter analyses the rule in Rylands v Fletcher on liability for damage done by the escape of dangerous things accumulated on one’s land, regardless of fault. It considers the problem in overlap between negligence and strict liability, and how the tort of negligence can impose liability in situations far removed from cases of individual fault, including the situations covered by Rylands v Fletcher. After providing an overview of the case of Rylands v Fletcher and the origins and elements of the rule, the chapter looks at the rule and its categorization and boundaries today, paying particular attention to two major English cases that treat Rylands as an aspect of nuisance: Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco v Stockport MBC. Finally, it examines the Australian High Court’s decision in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd

Chapter

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Rylands v Fletcher was an 1868 case that gave birth to a rule imposing strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things from land. The tort in Rylands v Fletcher differs from nuisance because it does not consider the involvement of the defendant in a continuous activity or an ongoing state of affairs. What distinguishes Rylands v Fletcher from actions in negligence is that there is no need for the existence of a duty of care and its breach, along with the questionable place of personal injury as an actionable type of damage. This chapter examines the tort in Rylands v Fletcher and the nature of the rule that arose from it. It also considers recent case law developments concerning Rylands v Fletcher and their impact on the current state of the law. Finally, the chapter evaluates the defences pertaining to Rylands v Fletcher.