Rylands V Fletcher Legal Principles

In Ontario, a common law province, Rylands was upheld by a lower court in Smith v. Inco Ltd.[41], a case alleging that a plant in Port Colborne, Ontario, had contaminated adjacent land with nickel. A subsequent 2010 decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of economic harm, which increased the legal burden of proof, but did not invalidate Rylands as a precedent. [42] [43] [44] However, it was said that the Court of Appeal erred in law in ruling on the concept of “unnatural”. In April 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada decided not to hear the appeal. [45] [46] The Principles of Rylands v. Fletcher were originally applied in Scots law, first in Mackintosh v. Fletcher. Mackintosh,[85] where a fire spreading from the defendant`s property to the plaintiff`s land caused property damage.

[86] Scottish lawyers and judges, however, have applied Rylands differently than their English counterparts. While in England and Wales the rule is interpreted as separate from negligence and the rules of due diligence and liability applicable to it apply, in Scotland the principle was that “negligence is always the cause of liability. The only difference is that in such cases, the owner is doing something to his property that is dangerous and unnecessary (or habitual?) in the ordinary management of the particular type of property, and he is therefore obliged to observe a higher degree of care to avoid harming his neighbor. [87] The application of Rylands in Scots law, which began in Mackintosh, ultimately ended in RHM Bakeries v. Strathclyde Regional Council. [88] Lord Fraser stated in his judgment that Rylands` idea of strict liability was not part of Scottish law and that the idea that it had ever been valid was “a heresy which should be eradicated”. [4] In Australia, the principles of Rylands v. Fletcher were “killed” by the High Court of Australia in Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty Ltd.

[36] [98] The High Court held that the Rylands Principles “should now be considered”. as absorbed by the principles of simple negligence and not as an autonomous principle of strict liability”. [99] In contrast, the Hong Kong principles have escaped destruction, where the courts have not yet followed the example of Australia, England and Wales, and Rylands remains an independent tort offence. [100] Gentlemen, the principles according to which this case is to be determined seem to me to be extremely simple. The defendants, who treated them as owners or occupants of the land on which the reservoir was built, could have lawfully used the reservoir for any purpose for which it could be used in the normal course of land use; and if, in what I shall call the natural user of that land, there had been an accumulation of water, whether above ground or underground, and if that accumulation of water had entered the area inhabited by the applicant by application of the laws of nature, the applicant would not have objected that that result had occurred. If he had wanted to protect himself, it would have behooved him to do so by leaving or interposing a barrier between his entourage and that of the defendants in order to prevent this operation of the laws of nature. Initially, U.S. courts generally did not apply the Rylands Doctrine.

Curiously, a number of cases that rejected the “rule” rejected it in the broad form enunciated by Justice Blackburn, ignoring or neglecting the fact that Lord Cairns` final wording was narrower. Much of the pre-rule hostility was likely due to the force of erroneous ethics and the desire to protect emerging industries. Currently, a majority of U.S. jurisdictions accept the rule, either in name or in deed. However, compared to the English decisions, American affairs were slightly less liberal in applying the rule. Rylands v. Fletcher is a form of harassment in which the land squatter who can and retains damage during his escape is obliged to prevent his escape and is responsible for the consequences of his escape, even if he did not act negligently. Another important point of distinction between the two rules is the award of damages. damages awarded if the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is customary or compensatory; but in cases where the rule set forth in MC Mehta is applicable, the court may award exemplary damages, and the larger and richer the enterprise, the higher the amount of compensation to be paid by it. A small bump in the road was expressed in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India and doubts were expressed as to the amount of damages to be paid.

But the Supreme Court has every doubt in another landmark decision in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, where it was held that the rule established in Mehta was no more obiter and was appropriate and proportionate to the prevailing conditions in the country. The next element of Rylands is that the thing is something “likely to wreak havoc if it escapes”. Prior to Transco plc v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, it did not have to be a dangerous object (see below); Rather, the risk lay in his behaviour if he escaped. In Rylands, the “thing” was water. Other examples are fire, as in Jones v. Festiniog Railway,[70] gas, as in Batchellor v.

Tunbridge Wells Gas Co,[71] as in West v. Bristol Tramways Co,[72] and electricity, as in Hillier v. Air Ministry. [73] The extent of the accumulation of the “thing” can also be taken into account, as in Mason v. Levy,[74] where it is not only the nature of the thing stored, but the quantity itself that created the danger. It is essential to a Rylands claim that there be an escape from a dangerous thing “from a place where the defendant has occupied or controlled land to a place outside his occupation or control”. In Read v. J Lyons & Co Ltd,[75] an explosion at a munitions factory killed an inspector on the property. Rylands was discouraged from not applying because there was no loophole.

The danger that escapes does not always have to be what has accumulated, but there must be a causal relationship. In Miles/Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd,[76] explosives stored on the defendant`s property caused stones to leak in an explosion and the defendant was found liable. [77] Value adjustments in respect of real estate sales – pre-contractual investigationsThis practical note concerns pre-contractual investigations related to capital write-downs for a transfer of ownership. It applies both to the granting of a new interest in land (e.g. a lease) and to the acquisition of a lease or existing immovable property. For clauses Pollution of groundwater or surface water passing through someone else`s property is a nuisance. In Willis v Derwentside District Council, the council was responsible for gas that escaped not only from its land, but also gas that passed through the property only through underground pipes. The inherent power provided for in article 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 (chap. 37 of art. Population control is a massive problem in our country, so faced with this problem, the Ut. Blackburn J.`s strict liability rule in Rylands v. Fletcher has proven over time to be highly ineffective in countering the unsafe use of its own property or an industry that produced substances or waste that were harmful to public health.

The essential requirements for establishing liability under the principle of strict liability, namely unnatural land use, use of a hazardous object and leakage element, have provided significant gaps for companies to avoid liability under the Rylands v. Fletcher rule. In addition, the exceptions usually provided for (and by the Supreme Court of India in MC Mehta v. Union of India) give commercial companies many opportunities to avoid liability. The Supreme Court of India in MC Mehta v. The Union of India has developed a stricter strict strict liability rule than the Rylands v. Fletcher rule. In this case, which concerned the leakage and damage to oleum gas from one of the units of the Shriram industry in Delhi, the court found that, taking into account the needs and requirements of a modern society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology, in which it was necessary, in the interests of the development programme, exploit an inherently dangerous or dangerous industry, A new regulation had to be adopted in order to adequately address the problems of a highly industrialized economy. This new rule must be based on the English rule of strict liability, but it must be even stricter, so that no company engaged in an inherently dangerous or dangerous activity can escape liability, whether or not there is negligence on the part of the company.