Tort Law- Rylands v Fletcher
rylands v fletcher
water escaped from a reservoir being built for D by contractors, there is a large amount of waate, as a result of this escape, Cs near by mine workings were flooded. water flowed through disused shafts connecting to ds property to that of Cs. because it had made that jorner, tresspass to land was inapplicable as interference was not direct. at trial the Cs claims were disnissed annd this was appealed in which the claim was reinstated
mines v forest rock granite
D sent explosive charges to blow up rock, the rock was escaping so R v F was applicable
transco v stockport
a leak developed in Ds water pipe (which supplied water to a block of flats); the escaping water saturated the embankment where Cs gas pipe was located; the embankment collapsed and left the gas pip unsupported (which gave rise to grave danger; C had to undertake costly remedial work
mason v levy auto parts
D stored large amounts of combustible material on its premises
Rigby v northamptonshire
the police decided to fluch a gun-tuting psychopath out of the shp. the police used Cs gas caniser and a bad fire resulted, this incident occured at the time when the fire brigade was one strike. the direct interference helf to be justifiable by necessity
Burnie port authority v general jones pty
fire caused ng wleding work escaped from Ds premises and entered Ps storage facility. C suffered losses totalling $2.246 million. D was held liable in negligence as R v F had been absorbed
stannard v gore
in the course of business, stannard stored approx 3000 tyres on his premises, a fire broke out which ignited the tires; the fire spread to gores adjoining premises which was destroyed
at trial the R v F action succeeded; negligence claim fails, this was appealed and the CoA allowed
musgrove v pandelis
a fire began in the engine of a car that had been stored in Ds garage, the fire spread and damaged neighbouring property. the occupier of the garage was geld liable for the resulting damage
goldman v hargrave
tree on Ds land was struck by lightning. D cut down the tree but did not extinguish the fire, he was held liable for damage to Ps premises as it was a measured duty of care