1. DEFENCES ( D can escape liability)
Consent of the Plaintiff
P expressly or impliedly
consented to the
accumulation of the thing
escape and there is no
neglegence on the part of
D.Then D is no liable.
Rainham Chemical Works
Common Benefit
Where the source of the
danger is maintained for the
common benefit of P & D,
then D is not liable if
escape.
Carstairs v Taylor
A hired from B the gr floor.B
stay upstairs.A box contain
water from roof was
grawned by rat which cause
the water leak and destroy
Act of third party
Where the defendant accumulate the thing
into his land but the escape is caused
through the unforseen act of a 3
rd
party ,D
is not liable.
Box v Jubb, (D`s reservoir over flowed
partly because a 3rdparty who was
conducting operations higher up th stream
discharged down stream an unusual large
volume of water into D`s reservoir.D was
not liable.
Hale v Jennings Bros, (Propreitor of a
chair O`plane was liable for the escape of
a chair caused by a passenger tempering
Act of God
An escape due to natural causes and w/out human
intervention and unforeseable then there is defence
of act of God.
Nichols v Marsland
D formed an artificial lakes by damming up natural
stream. An extra ordinary and violent thunderstorm
broke down the artificial barriers and water escape
dsetroying P` bridge.Held D is not liable due to act of
God.
Greenock Corp. v Caledonian Railway.
D constructed a pond by diverting natural stream.
Heavy rainfall destroyed it and the water poured to
Statutory Authority
Public bodies storing water,gas
electricity etc sometimes exempted
from liability by statute if reasonable
care has been taken.(It all depend
on statotury interpretation)
Green v Chelsea Waterworks
Co.
D`s company authorised by
Parliament to lay a main.It burst
w/out D`s negligent and caused
flood to P`s house, D` wwas not
liable.
Charing Cross Electricity Co. v
Hydraulic Power Co.
Default of the plaintiff
If the damage is caused
Solely by the act/default of
the Plaintiif –no remedy
under Reylands rule.
Ponting v Noaked,
P`s horse nibbed some
poisonous tree near the
defendants boundary and
Modern position of Rule
Reylands v Fletcher
Reylands Rule
l.there must be accumulatiion and
the substance must likely to cause
danger if escape.
2.condition of non natural user
with exceptional risk
3.Reasonable foreseability
required
Nuisance
l.no need accumulation and
escape
2. no need
3. same
4.non occupier has no remedy.
Now the rule seldom form a
successful claim in
court.Since it has develop the
scope which is most likely like
negligence.
