Consider the Rights and Remedies

...

Accumulation is also an important part of Rylands and Fletcher, if the ‘thing’ is a natural phenomenon on the land then a defendant cannot have brought it onto the land and so he has not collected it. However you can be liable if you deliberately accumulate the ‘thing.’ This is illustrated by Dunne and other v North West Gas board in which the gas board was not liable for an escape of gas because it did not accumulate for its own purposes but instead the nation. In relation to Robert, the lighter fuel was brought onto land and has been deliberately accumulated for his own purpose. Therefore this element of Rylands and fletcher is present.

The next element is that the use of the land must be non natural, for example in Crowhurst it was found that the planting of yew trees was a non-natural use of the land. Non natural was defined by Lord Moulton in Rickards as ‘some special use bringing with it increased danger to others…(not) the ordinary use of that or (that) proper for the general benefit of the community.’ Using the example of Transco PLC v Stockport to demonstrate this point. A high pressure gas main was owned by Transco and adjacently was the council who owned flats. A fracture occurred in the service pipe supplying water for the flats. Leading to water escaping and exposing and making a length of Transco’s gas main vulnerable. Transco lost the case due to the ruling of Lord Bingham showing the difference from a use of land which is domestic or normal and one which is a use of land which is “extraordinary and unusual.’’ In relation to Numar and Robert the use of lighter fuel for a barbecue is not unnatural as this is a domestic use which you would expect to have on land where there is a barbecue needing to be run and the fuel is used for this. Therefore the element is not present.

The next element needed for liability under Rylands and fletcher is danger. Lord Bingham formulated the rule that ‘an occupier of land who brings or keeps on his land an exceptionally dangerous or mischievous thing in extraordinary or unusual circumstances in ordinarily strictly liable for any damage caused by its escape.’ Using the case of Shiffman v Order of St John it was held that an ‘escaping’ flagpole was a danger. With the application of Lord Bingham’s rule to Numar and Robert the keeping of lighter fuel on land is not exceptionally dangerous, therefore Numar is not liable for it’s escape. This element is also not present due to the lack of an ‘exceptionally dangerous’ element.

A final element is the foreseeability of damage in which reasonableness comes into play. Using the case of Cambridge Water co v eastern Counties leather it was found the defendants were not liable in damages for the contamination on the basis that the damage was not foreseeable. Applying this to Numar and Robert it is likely to be found that the leaking of lighter fluid was not foreseeable to cause harm to Numar’s rare and delicate plants. Therefore this element needed for Rylands and Fletcher to succeed is also not present.

The fact that the plants are rare and delicate comes under abnormal sensitivity. If the only reason a claimant suffers unreasonable interference is because he is abnormally sensitive then he cannot recover. Therefore it is for the Judge to find whether or not the plants were only ruined because they were rare or would other plants have also been ruined. In my opinion I believe it is likely that abnormal sensitivity will not succeed.

Overall it is very unlikely that Robert will be found liable under the Rylands and Fletcher rule due to the fact that not all elements such as non natural, escape and damage are not present.

In relation to the obstruction of the motorists by Tom’s van this is a public nuisance. A public nuisance is defined in Attorney General v PYA quarries as ‘an unlawful act or omission that affects the life, safety, health or reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of people.’ The main difference between a private nuisance and a public one is that a public nuisance affects people generally, whereas a private nuisance only affects particular individuals.

The main point of a public nuisance is that the activity must be an unreasonable one, for example in Laws v Florinplace it was found that the operation of a ‘sex shop’ in a street was unreasonable and a public nuisance and the residents were granted an injunction. In relation to Tom and the motorists it is clear that his actions are unreasonable due to the fact he parks his ‘large’ van in the ‘narrow’ road and the implications of this are ‘severe obstructions’.

An individual may sue under the public nuisance only if he suffers special damage. Special damage is damage suffered over and above the rest of the class e.g. in Halsey v Esso petroleum smuts from the factory fell on the plaintiff’s car which counted as a special damage. However this is not relevant to Tom as no motorist suffered damage over and above the others.

It is likely that Tom will be found guilty of a public nuisance and the remedy will be that of the Attorney- General bringing an injunction preventing the parking of Tom’s van down this road.

In conclusion in relation to Robert against Numar it is likely that Numar will be found guilty of a private nuisance and the remedy may be damages and/or an injunction. In relation to Numar against Robert it is likely that he will not be found guilty so not remedy will be needed. Finally in relation to the motorists against Tom in connection with the obstruction it is likely that Tom will be found guilty of a public nuisance and an injunction will be placed preventing him from doing this in future.