Justice Blackburns rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher - Assignment Example

Justice Blackburn’s Rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher (a) The background to the case is as follows: Person X built a reservoir (on land that he had rented), with a view to supplying water to his steam-powered textile mill. Person Y who had rented land from the same person, operated mines on a proximate land to Person X’s and had tunneled upto some unused mines under the area where the reservoir was built. Whilst the reservoir in question was being built, the independent contractors hired to do the job came across some unused mine shafts which had been loosely filled. In actual fact these shafts led into Person Y’s land. A few days after the completion of the reservoir, water from the same flooded into Person Y’s land despite there being no unusual rainfall or flooding. The case went through various stages of the court system and ended up before the Court of Appeal, being the Exchequer Chamber of six judges, in 1866. There Justice Colin Blackburn stated the following which has now come to be referred to as “Justice Blackburn’s rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher”. "The true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the Plaintiff’s default; or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exits here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient." The four elements of the abovementioned rule can be summarized as follows: (a) the defendant brings onto his land for his own purposes something likely to cause mischief (b) which escapes ( Read Vs Lyons and Co ltd (1947) (c) due to non-natural use (d) which causes foreseeable harm It should be noted that Justice Blackburn’s rule was accepted with a slight modification by the House of Lords. The House of Lords imposed a restriction on the rule by stating that it is applicable to "nonnatural" use of the defendant's land, as distinguished from "any purpose for which it might in the ordinary course of the enjoyment of land be used." Court Structure (a) County Court Judgments A creditor can institute action in the county court for the amount due to him by the debtor. If the amount is paid the debtor can avoid judgment being given against him. A claim form is sent by the creditor to the debtor stating the claim that he has against him. If the debtor plays the debt in full along with interest and court fees, a CCJ is not issued and a court hearing avoided. On the other hand if he wishes to pay later or in installments the debtor should fill in the form stating how he wishes to pay the debt – a CCJ will however be issued in this instance. Alternatively if the debtor disputes the debt dispute the debt he should send the forms back explaining his grounds he disputes the claim or the value placed to it. The Court will then decide who is right and, if it decides in favour of the creditor, issue a CCJ. If the defendant believes that he does not owe anything at all, then he should return the Defense Form to the court explaining why he believes this is the case. The ‘Acknowledgement of Service’ form will allow the debtor time to put together an argument. If the debtor misses the time allotted for reply of the claim form he won’t be able to explain his personal circumstances and as a result of the CCJ process could demand that full payment is made in one installment. Evidence (a) The burden of proof in a criminal trial rests on the prosecution, who has to proved the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt whilst in civil cases the burden of proof rests on the claimant who has to prove his claim on the balance of probabilities, i.e. that the defendant was more likely liable than not liable. (b) Types of Civil Remedies 1. Specific Performance – An equitable remedy provided when monetary compensation is not sufficient. 2. Injunctions – A remedy ordering the defendant to do or forbear from doing something until a clear judgment is given by the court. 3. Declaratory Relief - there are two types of declaratory damages. i.e. a) A situation where at the end of the case the court “declares” that there was, in fact, a violation of the law. Serves a vindicatory purpose. b) Where parties anticipate a legal dispute and one (or both) petitions for, in essence, an advisory opinion. 4. Damages - There are broadly three types of damages: (1) Compensatory Damages (There are two types of the same. One, being special damages (provided for in cases of specific, tangible financial loss) and the second being general damages) (2) Nominal Damages (can sometimes be used where a finding of injury is necessary for plaintiff to prevail, but there’s really been no tangible loss or compensable mental distress or as a slap in the face to a prevailing plaintiff) and Punitive Damages ( awarded by the courts in order to deter similar wrongdoing by others; requires a clear showing of liability regarding the defendant’s intention or recklessness (i.e. deliberate or reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights, malice, wanton conduct, etc...) Elements of a contract (a) Offer - The offer must be expressed in a manner capable of acceptance without anything further required of offeree other than to indicate acceptance. It must also be clear that the offeror is prepared to be bound by the terms if the offer is accepted. (b) Acceptance - Acceptance must be unconditional and be communicated within the time period in which the offer is left open. In the event that the offeror does not specify a time period, the offer will be taken to be open for a reasonable period of time. (c) Consideration - The law only requires that there be sufficient consideration; something of value must be given. The adequacy of the consideration is for the parties to decide but cannot be something given or promised in the past. Difference between an offer and invitation to treat An invitation to treat is an indication of a willingness to conduct business. It is an invitation to make an offer or to commence negotiations rather than a firm undertaking to be bound (which is an offer). For example in the case of Pharmaceutical Society Vs Boots (1953), the Society had argued that a drug sale was completed when the customer took an item from the self and put it in their cart/basket.  The result of such analysis would be that that when the customer came to the sales desk the pharmacist would not be able to say that the drug could not be sold to that customer. After assessing the legal implications of such an analysis Somervell LJ noted that in relation to "an ordinary shop, although goods are displayed and it is intended that customers should go and choose what they want, the contract is not completed until, the customer having indicated the articles which he needs, the shopkeeper, or someone on his behalf, accepts that offer.  Then the contract is completed." Negligence (a) For a negligence claim to succeed the following should be established: (i) A duty of care was owed – could be owed by a specific person ( like a doctor) or an ill defined class of persons ( a car driver and other road users). (ii) The said duty of care should have been broken by the person who owed it – this would mean that the defendant’s conduct fell below the legally required standard (iii) as a result of the breach, the claimant should have suffered damages of a kind that the law deems worthy of compensation. (b) The starting point of the neighbor principle is the case of Donoghue vs Stevenson. Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows – Mrs Donoghue purchased a bottle of beer which had been manufactured by Mr. Stevenson. The drink came in an opaque bottle, which prevented the contents from being seen. A decomposed body of a snail was subsequently found in the bottle and Mrs Donoghue sued for injuries resulting from the resulting nervous shock and gastro-enteritis, which she claimed was caused through the incident. Lord Atkin of the House of Lords, enunciating the neighbor principle held that “that a duty was owed by an individual to person who are so closely and directly affected by his act that they ought to have reasonably been in his contemplation as being to affected ” (c) The standard of care expected is that of a reasonable person. As said in the case of Blythe Vs Birmingham Waterworks (1856) “negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a reasonable and prudent man would not do”. The test of a reasonable man however should be considered carefully in the the situation of a child, a learner or a professional. For example in the case of Mullins vs Richard which involved two 15 year olds, the test was said to be that of a prudent 15 year old and not a prudent adult. In the case of Nettleship vs Weston however, which involved a leaner driver, the court held that it was irrelevant that the learner driver was doing as well as she could, given her lack of experience, if a reasonable driver would have done better. Similarly in Wisher Vs Essex it was said that a doctor who holds himself out as a specialist will be held to the standards of a reasonably competent doctor even if he is a novice performing procedure for the first time. For a claim to succeed evidence of a lack of care must be demonstrated on a balance of probabilities by the claimant. If this is not possible the claimant can also demonstrate his case based on the doctrine of re ipsa loquiter. For the latter to succeed it should be proved that (a) the defendants must have control over a situation in which an event occurs (b) what occurs must be something which, in the normal course of things would not occur without there being negligence and (c)there is no evidence of the cause of accident. (d) An example of a case where flooding led to a claim of negligence is the case of Rylands Vs Fletcher. The details of the case are set out in page one of this assignment. Nuisance (a) The duty of a landowner in relation to naturally flowing water is specified in the case of In Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway [1917] 1 AC 556 where Lord Findlay LC said at page 572, “It is the duty of anyone who interferes with the course of a stream to see that the works which he substitutes for the channel provided by nature are adequate to carry off the water brought down even by extraordinary rainfall, and if damage results from the deficiency of the substitute which he has provided for the natural channel he will be liable”. Therefore the landowner is liable to damages caused by any adjustments he makes to the flow of the water and should ensure that if he makes any adjustments they will not interefere with the free flow of water. (b) Harper vs G N Haden & Sons involved an obstruction of a public highway. Haden erected scaffolding on a highway as part of construction operations in a cul-de-sac but provided a ttemporary pavement and a handrail for pedestrians. Harper’s shop lay beyond the scaffolding & his customers had to bypass the scaffolding in order to access the shop . Harper sued for damages claiming loss of trade because of this. The court held that reasonable actions by others leading to occasional temporary inconvenience is to be expected and that the occasional obstruction of public highways is to be expected, it works both ways, Harper, at some point may have done a similar thing. (c) To succeed in a claim, the claimant must provide that he had a right in the land, namely an interest in land or exclusive possession. Further he must prove any of the following (a) physical injury to the land – flooding or noxious fumes or (b) substantial interference with the enjoyment of the land – smells, dust and noise and (c) encroachment on a neighbor’s land –spreading roots or overhanging branches. Read More