Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Viewing past papers from my uni, even though R v F is thought to be pretty much irrelevant in modern day Tort, the topic keeps reoccurring. Is this true for other unis as well?
    And if so from what I gather it is the Transco decision that has sealed it's fate and the object of the R v F exercise is to understand the difference between private nuisance, liability and the special circumstances (historically) surrounding this particular case.

    Any thoughts?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Its still useful for historical context.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's not irrelevant - Transco definitely doesn't say that it's dead. In our exams they frequently drop it in, and even where it's inapplicable you have to consider the reasons why it's inapplicable.

    In our 2009 paper there was a situation where a herd of llamas escaped from a farm and started roaming the streets. Something that nearly everyone missed was the possibility that it may come under Rylands v Fletcher - it seems farfetched but it's very much alive.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The West Wing)
    It's not irrelevant - Transco definitely doesn't say that it's dead. In our exams they frequently drop it in, and even where it's inapplicable you have to consider the reasons why it's inapplicable.

    In our 2009 paper there was a situation where a herd of llamas escaped from a farm and started roaming the streets. Something that nearly everyone missed was the possibility that it may come under Rylands v Fletcher - it seems farfetched but it's very much alive.
    Because of the phrase non-natural use of the land? One could argue from a historical context that depending on the time that the llamas were bred on the land it would not be considered to be non-natural use at all and that this would seem to fit in the definition of a public nuisance, bringing in the issue of forseability etc.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vnupe)
    Because of the phrase non-natural use of the land? One could argue from a historical context that depending on the time that the llamas were bred on the land it would not be considered to be non-natural use at all and that this would seem to fit in the definition of a public nuisance, bringing in the issue of forseability etc.
    Right, but you're still having to consider it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The West Wing)
    Right, but you're still having to consider it.
    Fair enough
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The West Wing)
    It's not irrelevant - Transco definitely doesn't say that it's dead. In our exams they frequently drop it in, and even where it's inapplicable you have to consider the reasons why it's inapplicable.

    In our 2009 paper there was a situation where a herd of llamas escaped from a farm and started roaming the streets. Something that nearly everyone missed was the possibility that it may come under Rylands v Fletcher - it seems farfetched but it's very much alive.

    ^ This is very much correct. Assuming you have a law library/access to online resources such as Westlaw/Lexis Nexus, check out D. Nolan ‘The Distinctiveness of Rylands v Fletcher’ (2005) 121 Law Quarterly Review 421. It's a bit long-winded but provides a good analysis of the current state of the doctrine.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.