momentum week 5

More documents

Recommendations

Info

RYLANDS V FLETCHER Elements • brings or collects on the land • non-natural use of the land • for own purposes • escape to an area outside control (Read v Lyons: escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control) • likely to cause mischief (foreseeability) (Cambridge Water: one could only be strictly liable for damage which is deemed reasonably foreseeable.) This is an objective test. • There is likely going to be some contentious and some non-contentious elements. Identify which are noncontentious and state (listing the elements) that they are non-contentious/made up on the facts. Then, move onto the contentious elements • Give both sides of the argument for the non-contentious elements and suggest which side is stronger
RYLANDS V FLETCHER Even if all elements are fulfilled, your client/the defendant may have a defence available to them. • The plaintiff did something which caused the damage • The defendant had taken all reasonable care • It escaped naturally as a result of a third party and with no action on the part of the defendant • Act of God Nichols v Marsland – rainfall was sudden and unexpected, and the volume/extent of rain had not happened before Potential ways to distinguish • If the mischief/harm occurs on the defendant’s property, meaning that it does not escape to a neighbouring property • If it is a natural use of land – look at time, place and common practice. For example, if there is a munitions factory in an industrial community during the war time, this is less likely to be found as a non-natural use of land. Read v Lyons
Page 1 and 2: LAW131 WEEK 5
Page 3: RYLANDS V FLETCHER Summary • A re
Page 7 and 8: DONOGHUE V STEVENSON Summary • A
Page 9 and 10: PROVING NEGLIGENCE • Duty of Care
Page 11: MARKING GUIDE - HIGHER GRADES • F

momentum week 5

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?