Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Rylands v Fletcher HELP!

Hi,

I'd like some clarification on Rylands v Fletcher.

Would the defendant still be liable if he had rented the out the land to someone he acknowledged kept the dangerous thing on the land?
Are there any example cases of this?

Also, does strict liability still apply when the dangerous substance causes personal physical injury?
Any examples of cases of this?

Thanks!

Reply 1

Lawschoolhack

What's your view? Your need to show that you have done something to work this out for yourself.

Reply 2

liefay

Original post by Lawschoolhack

What's your view? Your need to show that you have done something to work this out for yourself.

The issue of liability for personal injury under Rylands v Fletcher was settled under Transco v Stockport, where both Bingham and Hoffman agree that there should be no liability because the rule is a subset of nuisance and concerned with proprietary rights rather than personal ones.
Is there a way of arguing against this?

However, I'm unsure about the issue of whether someone would still be liable under the rule if they had rented out the land and gave up control of the relevant land to a tenant. The defendant must be the occupier. Under S 1 (2) Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, the occupier able to exercise sufficient degree of control over their premises. If the landlord had given up control they aren't able to exercise sufficient control.
Would arguing against the defence of a stranger to show that a landlord was liable be farfetched? As he knew his tenant kept the dangerous substance.

Quick Reply

Latest

Articles for you

University phone numbers and contact details for Ucas Clearing 2023

Nationality and residency

Which university admissions tests do you need to take?

Postgraduate Doctoral Loan eligibility

Rylands v Fletcher HELP!

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you