Rylands v Fletcher | OCR A-Level Law
For Specification H418
OCR A-Level Law | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 50–60 minutes
This Rylands v Fletcher A-Level Law revision page explains the requirements for bringing a claim under one of OCR's torts connected to land. You will learn who can bring a claim, what the defendant must have brought onto and accumulated on their land, what counts as an extraordinary and unusual use, and how escape, foreseeability and actionable damage operate. OCR H418 requires students to define the tort, explain the requirements for a claim and apply them to factual scenarios. It follows your study of private nuisance [Lesson 126. Private nuisance: basic elements].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define the tort in Rylands v Fletcher.
Explain the requirements that must be established before a claim can succeed.
Explain the significance of bringing onto and accumulating something on land.
Explain extraordinary and unusual use of land, escape and reasonable foreseeability of damage.
Distinguish actionable property damage from personal injury.
Apply the requirements of Rylands v Fletcher systematically to factual scenarios.
Revision Notes 📚
Rylands v Fletcher A-Level Law revision: the core rule
Rylands v Fletcher is a tort connected to land. OCR materials treat the action as closely connected with nuisance, but it has its own specific requirements.
A useful exam definition is:
A claim under Rylands v Fletcher may arise where a defendant brings onto and accumulates on land under their control something likely to cause mischief if it escapes, the use of the land is extraordinary and unusual, and the thing escapes to land controlled by the claimant causing reasonably foreseeable property damage.
Current OCR mark schemes identify the core requirements as:
the relevant parties must have the necessary relationship with the land
the defendant must bring onto and accumulate something on their land
that thing must be likely to do mischief if it escapes
the use of the land must be extraordinary and unusual
the thing must escape
the escape must cause reasonably foreseeable damage
the damage must be of an actionable type.
These elements should normally be dealt with separately in a problem question.
The claimant and defendant
Before analysing the thing that escaped, identify the parties.
The claimant must have an interest in the affected land
Because Rylands v Fletcher protects interests connected with land, the claimant must have the required legal interest in the land affected by the escape.
Hunter v Canary Wharf is an appropriate authority for this requirement.
This is similar to the claimant requirement studied in private nuisance [Lesson 126. Private nuisance: basic elements].
For example:
Zara owns the neighbouring property onto which a chemical escapes.
Zara has an interest in the affected land and can satisfy the claimant requirement.
A person who merely happens to be present on the land does not satisfy this requirement simply because they suffer harm.
The defendant must control the land from which the thing escapes
The defendant must have the relevant control and possession of the land on which the thing is accumulated.
Read v Lyons is associated with this requirement.
In an exam scenario, look for facts such as:
the defendant owns the land
the defendant occupies the land
the defendant controls the place where the substance or object is stored.
📌 Exam technique: Identify the parties explicitly before beginning the individual elements. Do not assume that because two people are described as neighbours, their legal relationship with the land is automatically established.
Bringing onto and accumulating the thing
The first major requirement concerns bringing onto and accumulating something on the defendant's land.
The defendant must have brought the relevant thing onto the land and accumulated it there.
Giles v Walker is a key authority for this element.
Bringing onto the land
The thing involved in the claim must have been brought onto the defendant's land rather than simply occurring there naturally.
Ask:
Did the defendant introduce the thing onto the land?
Accumulating
It must then have been collected, stored or otherwise accumulated on the land.
The quantity and circumstances may be important when later deciding whether the use of the land is extraordinary and unusual.
For example:
A business brings numerous containers of industrial fluid onto its property and stores them in its yard.
The fluid has been both:
brought onto the land
accumulated there.
Bringing and accumulating is separate from extraordinary use
These two requirements are easy to confuse.
Bringing and accumulating asks:
Did the defendant introduce and collect the thing on the land?
Extraordinary and unusual use asks:
What kind of use of the land was the defendant making by keeping or using it there?
They are not the same question.
OCR examiner reports have specifically identified confusion between things that occur naturally and the requirement for an extraordinary or unusual use of land.
⚠️ Important: Do not write that "the thing itself is non-natural". The issue is the use of the land, not whether the substance or object itself looks natural or artificial.
Something likely to do mischief if it escapes
The accumulated thing must be capable of causing harm if it escapes.
The classic rule requires something likely to do mischief if it escapes.
Relevant authorities include:
Rylands v Fletcher
Hale v Jennings Bros.
The thing does not necessarily have to be inherently dangerous in every circumstance. The important question is what is likely to happen if it escapes.
Applying the requirement
Suppose a defendant stores a large quantity of toxic liquid beside neighbouring farmland.
If the liquid escapes, it is capable of damaging crops.
The facts therefore support the argument that the accumulated thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes.
The risk if it escapes
Current OCR materials, drawing on Transco v Stockport MBC, focus on whether the defendant recognised or ought reasonably to have recognised that there was an exceptionally high risk of danger if an escape occurred.
This analysis should be connected to the nature and circumstances of the thing being accumulated.
For example, if the facts state that a substance is toxic to plants and it is being stored in large quantities beside agricultural land, those facts strongly support the "likely to do mischief" requirement.
Do not confuse two types of foreseeability
This is one of the most important distinctions in Rylands v Fletcher.
Issue | Question to ask |
Likely to do mischief if it escapes | Is the accumulated thing capable of presenting a serious danger if an escape occurs? |
Reasonably foreseeable damage | Once it escapes, was the kind of damage actually caused reasonably foreseeable? |
The first concerns the danger associated with escape.
The second concerns the damage caused by the actual escape.
OCR's 2024 and 2025 examiner reports identified confusion between these stages as a recurring weakness. Examiners advised that reasonable foreseeability of damage is best dealt with alongside the actual escape rather than being merged into the earlier "likely to do mischief" requirement.
Extraordinary and unusual use of land
The defendant's use of the land must satisfy an additional requirement.
Current OCR materials use the formulation from Transco v Stockport MBC:
The use must be extraordinary and unusual having regard to the circumstances of the time and place.
The older expression non-natural use may also be encountered, with Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather providing relevant authority.
For OCR answers, the more precise modern approach is to consider whether the use is extraordinary and unusual in the particular time and place.
The circumstances of the time and place
Whether a use is extraordinary and unusual depends upon context.
You therefore need to apply facts about:
what the defendant is doing
where the activity is taking place
what is being accumulated
how much is being accumulated
the circumstances surrounding the activity.
For example:
A farmer begins restoring a large yacht in a working farmyard and accumulates large quantities of toxic marine varnish.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme treated the location and scale of the activity as relevant to whether the use of the farmland was extraordinary and unusual.
The key is not simply that varnish is present. The question is whether using that particular land in that particular way, including the quantities involved, is extraordinary and unusual.
Avoid automatic conclusions about extraordinary use
Do not write:
"It is dangerous, so it is a non-natural use."
That skips the required legal reasoning.
A stronger application would be:
The defendant is storing a large amount of a substance capable of causing serious property damage in circumstances where that use would be unusual for the location. This supports a finding that the use of the land is extraordinary and unusual under Transco v Stockport MBC.
The use of the land must be analysed separately from whether the thing is likely to cause mischief.
Escape
There must be an escape.
The thing must move from land or circumstances under the defendant's control to land under the claimant's control.
Authorities include:
Read v Lyons
Hale v Jennings Bros
Transco v Stockport MBC.
This makes the direction of movement important.
A simple way to remember it is:
D's controlled land or circumstances → C's controlled land
Example
A tank on Devon's property splits. Liquid runs across the boundary and onto Priya's neighbouring land.
There has been an escape because the liquid has moved:
from land under Devon's control
onto land under Priya's control.
The thing itself must escape
It is important to identify what the defendant accumulated and what actually escaped.
Stannard v Gore is relevant to the principle that the thing accumulated must itself escape.
This can become particularly important where fire is involved.
Do not simply say:
"Something harmful reached the claimant, therefore there was an escape."
Instead ask:
What exactly did the defendant bring onto and accumulate?
What exactly moved from the defendant's land?
Was it the accumulated thing itself?
Escape may occur gradually
An escape does not have to occur as one dramatic event.
OCR's 2024 mark scheme recognised that incremental drips of an accumulated substance could still satisfy the escape requirement, referring to Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather.
For example:
A stored chemical repeatedly drips onto the ground and gradually passes into neighbouring land.
The gradual nature of the movement does not automatically prevent it from constituting an escape.
The escape must cause damage
The escape must cause damage to the claimant's relevant interest in land.
There needs to be a link between:
the thing that escaped, and
the property damage suffered.
For example:
Toxic liquid escapes from a tank and destroys the claimant's ordinary garden plants.
The liquid has escaped and caused property damage.
The damage must be reasonably foreseeable
The type of damage caused by the escape must be reasonably foreseeable.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather is the key authority.
Ask:
Was damage of this kind reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the escape?
For example, if the facts explicitly state that a liquid is toxic to plants and it escapes onto neighbouring crops, damage to those crops is strongly foreseeable.
This is the correct point at which to discuss reasonable foreseeability.
Actionable damage
Not every form of harm is recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher.
OCR's current materials emphasise that the tort protects rights and enjoyment connected with land.
Property damage
Damage to the claimant's property may be actionable.
Examples supported by OCR assessment material include:
destroyed plants
damaged crops
damage to neighbouring land or property.
Personal injury
Personal injury is not recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher.
OCR relies on Transco v Stockport MBC for this limitation.
This is a particularly important examination point because OCR scenarios may deliberately include both:
actionable property damage
non-actionable personal injury.
Example
Suppose a chemical escapes from a neighbouring property.
It:
destroys Aisha's fruit trees
causes Aisha to suffer a painful skin reaction.
The damage to the fruit trees may be actionable under Rylands v Fletcher if the other elements are established.
The skin reaction is personal injury and is not recoverable under this tort.
⚠️ Do not conclude simply that "Aisha wins" or "Aisha loses". Deal with the different forms of damage separately.
A complete Rylands v Fletcher checklist
When applying the tort, work systematically.
Parties
Does the claimant have the required interest in the affected land?
Does the defendant control the land from which the escape occurs?
Bringing onto and accumulating
Did the defendant bring the thing onto the land?
Was it accumulated there?
Likely to do mischief
Is the thing capable of causing serious harm if it escapes?
Extraordinary and unusual use
Is the defendant's use of the land extraordinary and unusual in the circumstances of the time and place?
Escape
Did the thing move from land or circumstances controlled by the defendant to land controlled by the claimant?
Was it the accumulated thing itself that escaped?
Damage
Did the escape actually cause damage?
Foreseeability
Was the type of damage reasonably foreseeable?
Actionable type of harm
Is it damage to property or land interests?
Is any claimed loss actually personal injury, which is not recoverable under this tort?
If all the relevant requirements are satisfied, you can reach a provisional conclusion on liability before considering Rylands v Fletcher defences [Lesson 130. Rylands v Fletcher defences].
Worked application
Consider the following scenario:
Kiran owns a small commercial unit next to Rosa's plant nursery. Kiran brings several large containers of industrial cleaning liquid onto his land for use in his business. The labels state that the liquid is highly damaging to vegetation. The containers are stored beside the boundary. One container develops a leak and the liquid gradually runs across the boundary onto Rosa's land. It destroys a number of ordinary plants belonging to the nursery.
Step 1: Parties
Rosa owns the affected nursery and therefore has the required interest in the damaged land.
Kiran owns and controls the land on which the liquid has been accumulated.
The party requirements appear to be satisfied.
Step 2: Bringing onto and accumulating
Kiran has brought the containers onto his commercial land.
Several large containers have been stored there, so there has been accumulation.
Giles v Walker is relevant.
Step 3: Likely to do mischief if it escapes
The liquid is specifically described as highly damaging to vegetation.
This indicates that it is capable of causing mischief if it escapes.
Step 4: Extraordinary and unusual use
The next question is whether storing the liquid in these quantities on this particular land is an extraordinary and unusual use in the circumstances of the time and place.
The nature of Kiran's commercial activity, the quantities involved and the location should be applied to the Transco v Stockport MBC requirement.
A conclusion should be supported from the facts rather than assumed simply because the substance is hazardous.
Step 5: Escape
The liquid moves from Kiran's land across the boundary onto Rosa's land.
There is therefore an escape from land controlled by the defendant to land controlled by the claimant.
The fact that the leak is gradual does not automatically prevent this requirement from being satisfied.
Step 6: Damage and foreseeability
The liquid destroys Rosa's plants.
The labels state that the substance damages vegetation, making property damage of this type reasonably foreseeable under Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather.
Step 7: Actionable harm
The plants form part of the property interests affected by the escape.
The loss is therefore capable of being actionable, unlike personal injury.
Conclusion
Provided the court is satisfied that Kiran's use of the land was extraordinary and unusual, Rosa has a strong argument that the requirements of Rylands v Fletcher are satisfied.
Keep the elements separate in problem questions
A strong OCR response explains and applies each element independently.
Avoid compressing everything into a sentence such as:
"Kiran made a non-natural use by storing dangerous liquid which escaped, so he is liable."
That does not show enough explanation.
Instead, establish:
bringing onto the land
accumulation
likelihood of mischief
extraordinary and unusual use
escape
foreseeable property damage
as distinct legal stages.
This will also make it easier to distinguish Rylands v Fletcher from private nuisance when you reach comparing torts connected to land [Lesson 131. Comparing torts connected to land].
Do not add defences unless the question requires them
OCR problem questions sometimes specifically instruct candidates not to consider defences or remedies.
When that happens, follow the instruction.
The separate defences available under this tort are studied in Rylands v Fletcher defences [Lesson 130. Rylands v Fletcher defences], and they are later consolidated with other tort defences in volenti and land-specific defences [Lesson 139. Volenti and land-specific defences].
If a question excludes them, discussing them takes time without answering the issue set.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Accumulation | The defendant brings something onto land under their control and collects or stores it there. | Apply Giles v Walker to decide whether the relevant thing was brought onto and accumulated on the land. |
Likely to do mischief | The accumulated thing is capable of causing serious harm if it escapes. | Explain why the characteristics and circumstances of the thing make escape dangerous. |
Extraordinary and unusual use | A use of land that is extraordinary and unusual when the time, place and surrounding circumstances are considered. | Apply Transco v Stockport MBC to the defendant's particular use of the land. |
Escape | Movement of the accumulated thing from land or circumstances controlled by the defendant to land controlled by the claimant. | Identify exactly what moved and where it moved from and to. |
Reasonably foreseeable damage | Damage of a kind that could reasonably have been anticipated if the escape occurred. | Apply Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather after establishing the escape and resulting damage. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Explain each requirement rather than giving one memorised definition. In 2023, OCR found that stronger responses explained bringing and accumulating, likelihood of mischief, extraordinary and unusual use, escape and foreseeable damage separately. Weaker answers often gave one accurate but undeveloped definition.
Examiner hint: Use the facts as evidence for each element. The 2023 report praised candidates who picked up both parts of requirements such as "bringing on and accumulating" and "escape and reasonably foreseeable damage", then linked those principles directly to the scenario.
Examiner hint: Do not describe the accumulated thing itself as "non-natural". OCR has repeatedly identified this misconception. The requirement concerns the defendant's use of the land, with the modern Transco formulation asking whether that use is extraordinary and unusual in the circumstances.
Examiner hint: Keep the two foreseeability issues separate. OCR's 2025 report identified confusion between a thing being likely to cause mischief if it escapes and the requirement that the actual damage caused by the escape is reasonably foreseeable.
Examiner hint: Remember the limitation on personal injury. OCR's 2024 report noted that stronger candidates recognised that property harm could be actionable while personal injury could not be recovered under Rylands v Fletcher.
Examiner hint: Follow the question rubric. If the question tells you not to discuss defences or remedies, do not add them. OCR reports repeatedly warn that irrelevant material wastes time and prevents candidates from developing the required AO1 and AO2.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Giving one long definition without explaining the elements
Why this is incorrect: A definition may identify the requirements, but a 20-mark OCR problem question requires developed knowledge and application.
How to improve: Use separate paragraphs for accumulation, likelihood of mischief, extraordinary use, escape, foreseeability and actionable damage.
Mistake: Saying the substance itself must be "non-natural"
Why this is incorrect: The issue is not whether the accumulated thing looks natural or artificial. The relevant question is whether the use of the land is extraordinary and unusual in the circumstances.
How to improve: Apply Transco v Stockport MBC to what the defendant is doing with the land, including the context, location and scale of the activity.
Mistake: Merging accumulation and extraordinary use
Why this is incorrect: They ask different questions. Accumulation concerns whether the defendant brought and collected the thing on the land. Extraordinary use concerns how the land is being used.
How to improve: Use separate headings or paragraphs for each requirement.
Mistake: Treating "likely to do mischief" and foreseeability as the same test
Why this is incorrect: The first asks about the danger if the thing escapes. The second asks whether the type of damage caused by the actual escape was reasonably foreseeable.
How to improve: Discuss Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather alongside the actual escape and resulting damage.
Mistake: Forgetting that there must be an escape
Why this is incorrect: The thing must move from land or circumstances controlled by the defendant to land controlled by the claimant.
How to improve: Write explicitly where the thing starts, where it goes and who controls each area.
Mistake: Failing to identify what actually escaped
Why this is incorrect: It is not enough that some harmful consequence reaches neighbouring land. The accumulated thing itself must escape.
How to improve: Identify the accumulated thing first, then identify what physically crosses from the defendant's control to the claimant's land. Refer to Stannard v Gore where appropriate.
Mistake: Treating personal injury as actionable damage
Why this is incorrect: OCR's current materials make clear that personal injury is not recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher.
How to improve: Separate property damage from personal injury in the scenario and reach a distinct conclusion for each.
Mistake: Applying defences when the question excludes them
Why this is incorrect: This does not answer the question and wastes examination time.
How to improve: Read the final instruction carefully. If defences are excluded, stop after reaching a conclusion on the requirements for liability.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define the tort in Rylands v Fletcher. [2 marks]
Question 2
Explain what is meant by the requirement that the defendant must bring onto and accumulate something on their land. Refer to relevant legal authority. [4 marks]
Question 3
Explain what is meant by an extraordinary and unusual use of land under Rylands v Fletcher. [4 marks]
Question 4
Explain the difference between:
something being likely to do mischief if it escapes, and
the requirement that the damage caused by an escape is reasonably foreseeable.
[6 marks]
Question 5
Amelia owns land next to a storage yard. A liquid stored in a tank on the yard leaks through the boundary onto Amelia's land.
Explain the escape requirement and identify the additional facts you would need to establish it fully. [6 marks]
Question 6
A substance escapes from land controlled by Tariq onto neighbouring land owned by Beth. It destroys Beth's trees and also causes Beth to suffer burns when she comes into contact with it.
Explain which types of harm may be actionable under Rylands v Fletcher. [6 marks]
Question 7
Hugo owns a commercial workshop. He brings a large number of containers of specialist cleaning fluid onto the property and stores them in a yard. The fluid is known to damage ordinary vegetation if released. One container splits and the fluid crosses the boundary into neighbouring land owned by Nina, destroying several ordinary shrubs.
Advise Nina whether the main requirements of Rylands v Fletcher appear to be satisfied. Do not consider any defences or remedies. [10 marks]
Question 8
Darren owns a farm next to land owned by Priya. Darren has recently started restoring industrial machinery in his farmyard. For the work, he brings several large tanks of chemical cleaning solution onto the farm and stores them beside a boundary fence.
The solution is highly toxic to plants. One of the tanks develops a crack. Over several days, the chemical drips onto the ground and gradually passes across the boundary into Priya's land. It destroys her fruit trees and vegetable crop. While trying to remove the contaminated soil, Priya develops a painful skin condition.
Advise Priya whether Darren would be liable under Rylands v Fletcher. Do not consider any defences or remedies. [20 marks]
Indicative answers and mark scheme
Question 1
Award up to 2 marks for an accurate definition containing the central requirements, such as:
the defendant brings onto and accumulates something on land under their control
the thing is likely to cause mischief if it escapes
the land is put to an extraordinary and unusual use
the thing escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable property damage.
A concise but legally accurate definition can gain full credit.
Question 2
Award up to 4 marks for explaining that:
the relevant thing must be brought onto the defendant's land
it must be accumulated there
this requires more than something simply being naturally present on the land
Giles v Walker is relevant authority.
The bringing and accumulation requirement should not be confused with extraordinary and unusual use.
Question 3
Award up to 4 marks for explaining that:
the requirement concerns the defendant's use of the land
the use must be extraordinary and unusual
the circumstances of the time and place must be considered
Transco v Stockport MBC is relevant authority.
Reference to the older description of a non-natural use and Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather may also be credited where accurately explained.
Question 4
Award up to 6 marks for explaining that:
"likely to do mischief if it escapes" concerns the dangerous consequences that could arise if the accumulated thing escaped
Hale v Jennings Bros may support this requirement
the thing need not simply be labelled inherently dangerous
reasonable foreseeability concerns the actual kind of damage caused once an escape has taken place
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather is relevant to reasonable foreseeability
the two requirements should be analysed separately.
Question 5
Award up to 6 marks for explaining that:
there must be movement from land or circumstances controlled by the defendant
the movement must be to land controlled by the claimant
the accumulated thing itself must escape
Read v Lyons, Hale v Jennings Bros or Stannard v Gore may be used appropriately
it would be necessary to establish who controls the storage yard
it would be necessary to establish that Amelia has the relevant interest and control of the affected land.
Question 6
Award up to 6 marks for:
identifying the destroyed trees as property damage
recognising that property damage is capable of being actionable
explaining that the other Rylands requirements would still need to be satisfied
identifying Beth's burns as personal injury
explaining that personal injury is not recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher
appropriate reference to Transco v Stockport MBC.
Question 7
A strong response should explain and apply the following.
Parties
Nina owns the neighbouring land and therefore has the relevant interest in the affected property.
Hugo owns and controls the workshop land from which the fluid escapes.
Bringing and accumulation
Hugo brings the containers of cleaning fluid onto his property and stores a large number of them there.
This satisfies the bringing and accumulation requirement, supported by Giles v Walker.
Likely to do mischief
The cleaning fluid is known to damage ordinary vegetation if released.
This provides evidence that the substance is likely to cause mischief if it escapes.
Extraordinary and unusual use
The court would need to consider whether storing this quantity of specialist fluid represents an extraordinary and unusual use of Hugo's commercial land in the circumstances of the time and place.
Transco v Stockport MBC is relevant.
Escape
The fluid moves from Hugo's land across the boundary onto Nina's land.
The accumulated thing itself has therefore escaped from the defendant's control to the claimant's land.
Foreseeability and damage
The fluid destroys ordinary shrubs.
Because it is known to damage vegetation, property damage of this type is reasonably foreseeable under Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather.
Conclusion
Provided the storage amounts to an extraordinary and unusual use of the land, the facts strongly support the requirements of Rylands v Fletcher.
Question 8
A high-level answer should apply each requirement systematically.
Parties
Darren owns and controls the farm from which the chemical escapes.
Priya owns the neighbouring land and therefore has the required interest in the affected property.
The party requirements appear to be satisfied.
Bringing onto and accumulating
Darren has deliberately brought several large tanks of chemical cleaning solution onto the farm for his machinery-restoration activity.
The chemical is stored there, so it has been accumulated.
Giles v Walker supports the requirement.
Likely to do mischief if it escapes
The solution is stated to be highly toxic to plants.
There is therefore strong evidence that it is capable of causing mischief if it escapes. Darren ought to recognise the serious risk associated with an escape of this substance.
Extraordinary and unusual use
Darren is using a farmyard to carry out industrial machinery restoration and is storing several large tanks of chemical cleaning solution.
The court would consider whether this represents an extraordinary and unusual use having regard to the circumstances of the time and place, applying Transco v Stockport MBC.
The combination of the nature of the activity, the farm location and the quantity of toxic solution provides a strong argument that this requirement is satisfied.
A strong answer should explain the use of the land rather than merely saying that the chemical itself is "non-natural".
Escape
The chemical leaks from Darren's tank, moves through the ground and crosses onto Priya's neighbouring land.
The accumulated substance itself has moved from land controlled by Darren to land controlled by Priya.
The fact that the escape takes place gradually over several days does not automatically prevent an escape from being established.
Reasonably foreseeable damage
The chemical destroys Priya's fruit trees and vegetable crop.
The solution is expressly described as highly toxic to plants, so this kind of property damage is reasonably foreseeable.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather is relevant.
Actionable property damage
Damage to the fruit trees and vegetable crop is damage connected with Priya's land and is capable of being actionable under Rylands v Fletcher.
Personal injury
Priya's painful skin condition is personal injury.
Under Transco v Stockport MBC, personal injury is not recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher. Darren therefore would not be liable under this tort for that part of Priya's harm.
Conclusion
There is a strong argument that Darren satisfies the requirements of Rylands v Fletcher, particularly if the court concludes that storing several large tanks of toxic cleaning solution while carrying out industrial restoration on farmland constitutes an extraordinary and unusual use of the land.
Priya therefore has a strong potential claim for the foreseeable property damage to her trees and crops, but not for her personal injury. The next stage of a complete claim would be to consider Rylands v Fletcher defences [Lesson 130. Rylands v Fletcher defences].
Comments