transco v stockport act of god

In such a case, the damage is inflicted by the forces of nature and in such circumstances, the defendant would not be … But neither addressed the question of whether the escape was reasonably foreseeable; in both cases, the defendant was obviously well aware that his water was flowing into his neighbour's mine. This would have the incidental advantage of bringing the law of England and Wales more closely into line with what I understand to be the law of Scotland (see RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council 1985 SLT 214, 217, where Lord Fraser of Tullybelton described the suggestion that the decision in Rylands v Fletcher had any place in Scots law as "a heresy which ought to be extirpated"). In some cases the attempt to invoke the rule was repelled by relying on Blackburn J's statement that the defendant must have brought whatever escaped onto his land "for his own purposes". Stockport appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed that Appeal and subsequently appealed to the House of Lords. The argument that insurance makes the rule unnecessary is no more valid than saying that, because some people can afford to and sensibly do take out comprehensive car insurance, no driver should be civilly liable for his negligent driving. The defendant council were responsible for the maintenance of the pipe work supplying water to a block of flats. which is not realistically possible to guard against. But others thought differently. change. I also doubt whether a test of reasonable user is helpful, since a user may well be quite out of the ordinary but not unreasonable, as was that of Rylands, Rainham Chemical Works or the tannery in Cambridge Water. Without negligence on the part of the council or its servants or agents, the pipe failed at a point within the block with the inevitable result that water escaped. Second, the claim cannot include a claim for death or personal injury, since such a claim does not relate to any right in or enjoyment of land. In both, the question was whether the defendant had the right to conduct his mining operations so that water flowed into his neighbour's mine. (Lord Hoffman), 4. And the proposition that strict liability is best left to statute receives support from the speech of Lord Goff of Chieveley in the Cambridge Water case [1994] 2 AC 264, 305: 42   An example of statutory strict liability close to home is section 209 of the Water Industry Act 1991:     This provision is designed to avoid all argument over which insurers should bear the loss. The House, affirming the Court of Appeal, held that since the board was acting under statutory authority in maintaining the main, they were not liable in the absence of negligence. Again, as it seems to me, the question is whether the defendant has done something which he recognises, or ought to recognise, as being quite out of the ordinary in the place and at the time when he does it. 18   At some time in the summer of 1992 a leak developed in a high pressure pipe belonging to the council which supplied water to Hollow End Towers, an 11-storey tower block on the Brinnington Estate. When, in Ross v Fedden (1872) 26 LT 966, 968, it was later suggested to him by counsel that the question in Rylands v Fletcher had never been decided until the adjudication of that case, he rejected the suggestion in robust terms. They were cases about whether one occupier of land was entitled to inflict damage upon another, irrespective of whether it was foreseeable or even intentional. In Attorney General v Cory Brothers and Co Ltd [1921] 1 AC 521, 525, 530, 534, 536, the landslide in question was of what counsel described as an "enormous mass of rubbish", some 500,000 tons of mineral waste tipped on a steep hillside. I shall call it Transco. The costs of the works required to restore support and cover the pipe was £93,681.00. It must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely be the ordinary use of the land ....". But it was smaller than a water main. The criteria of exceptional risk had to be taken seriously to create a high threshold for a Claimant to surmount. The second category can be seen as including (but is certainly not limited to) the emission or escape of dangerous substances. Stored water might constitute such a danger as could a high pressure water main laid under a city street: Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772. Secondly, it had to be borne in mind that insurance in respect of damage to property was extremely common and a useful guide in deciding whether the risk had been created by not a natural user of land, would be to ask whether the damage which occurred was something against which an occupier would reasonably be expected to have insured himself. First, there is no evidence that it created a greater risk than is normally associated with domestic or commercial plumbing. But I hesitate to adopt that solution for four main reasons. It was decided according to a rule which Blackburn J, speaking for the Exchequer Chamber ((1866) LR 1 Ex 265, 279), formulated in terms afterwards approved by the House of Lords ( LR 3 HL 330, 339-340): 23   In the House of Lords, Lord Cairns LC LR 3 HL 330, 338-339 put the matter in this way: 24   Lord Cairns said, at p 338, that the principles were "extremely simple" and Blackburn J disclaimed any originality in the formulation of the rule ("I wasted much time in the preparation of the judgment in Rylands v Fletcher if I did not succeed in showing that the law held to govern it had been the law for at least 300 years": Ross v Fedden (1872) 26 LT 966, 968) but posterity has taken him to have protested too much. The fracture was found and quickly repaired. There had been no negligence on the part of the waterworks company. Natural events and acts of third parties were excluded from the application of the Rule; (c) Remoteness – liability was limited to damage which was the “natural” ie reasonably foreseeable consequence of the escape see Cambridge Water Company -v- Eastern Counties Leather Plc; (d) Escape – the Rule remained despite attempts to generalise it, to the effect that an escape from the Defendant’s land or control was an essential element of the tort; (e) Personal injury – Rylands -v- Fletcher is in effect a special form of nuisance. In August 1942 she was injured by the explosion of a shell. Viewed against the fact of the statutory authority, the user is a natural and ordinary use of the land. The case of Carstairs v Taylor (1871) LR 6 Exchequer 217 concerned damage done by rats to a gutter-box draining rain water from the roof of a warehouse, part of which was let to the plaintiff and in consequence wetted; but it was decided on consent grounds not on causation (except possibly for Kelly CB); Rylands v Fletcher was treated as distinguishable and therefore not applicable. Mellish LJ said that in order to be an ‘act of God’ an event must be irresistible. In the first case, Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 ("Cambridge Water"), the House confirmed that strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher should be regarded as a species, or special case, of nuisance, and confirmed or established that both for the genus and for the species it is normally a prerequisite of liability that damage (of the type actually suffered) was foreseeable. Transco v Stockport. Explained by Lord Hobhouse in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council as describing an event: The other members of the Appellate Committee made the same point (see pp 173-174, 177, 181 and 186). Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations. 1   In this appeal the House is called upon to review the scope and application, in modern conditions, of the rule of law laid down by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, affirmed by the House of Lords, in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Exch 265; (1868) LR 3 HL 330. With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus. The present case is no exception. In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. Transco took steps to repair the damage. 3   Few cases in the law of tort or perhaps any other field are more familiar, or have attracted more academic and judicial discussion, than Rylands v Fletcher. 53   As formulated by Blackburn J and approved on appeal, the rule is: 54   The salient features of the rule are easily identified: the self interest of the landowner, his conduct in bringing or keeping on his land something dangerous which involves a risk of damaging his neighbours' property, the avoidance of such damage by ensuring that the danger is confined to his own property and liability to his neighbours if he fails to do so, subject to a principle of remoteness. The estate was built by the predecessor of the respondent, the Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council ("the council") between 40 and 50 years ago and is the mixture of semi-detached houses and tower blocks characteristic of the urban planning of that time. In these circumstances the remarks of Lord Wilberforce, although not directly applicable, are in my opinion highly relevant to the question whether the laying and maintaining by the council of the supply pipe was, for Rylands v Fletcher purposes, a "natural" or "ordinary" use of its land so as to exempt it from liability resulting therefrom in the absence of negligence. It would be unjust to deny the other a risk based remedy and introduce a requirement of proving fault. . Proof of negligence would have been necessary for recovery. The House (Lord Cooke of Thorndon dissenting) reaffirmed that the essence of private nuisance is a wrong committed by one landowner against a neighbouring landowner, so that to succeed in nuisance a claimant must have a sufficient proprietary (or at least possessory) interest in the land affected. ... Act of a stranger: unforseeable act of a stranger over whom he had no control and defendant was not negligent. In my opinion the twin requirements are best understood if they are taken together, as is implicit in Lord Moulton's reference to danger:     It is the extraordinary risk to neighbouring property, if an escape occurs, which makes the land use "special" for the purposes of the principle in Rylands v Fletcher. But the invitation to generalise the rule was comprehensively rejected. But early cases on Rylands v Fletcher quickly established that natural events ("Acts of God") and acts of third parties excluded strict liability. If it cannot be done without causing an unreasonable interference, it cannot be done at all. In other words, they were ordinary nuisance cases, concerned with the kind of damage of which an occupier could complain. 78   The "escape" issue was specifically addressed by the trial judge. 90   So, to return to the question whether the council's use of its land was a natural and ordinary use that did not attract strict liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, or, for that matter, in nuisance, there can in my opinion, be only one answer. It was further held that at the time of the spillages it was not foreseen or foreseeable that such spillages would cause any harm to other landowners or their water supplies. But the rule was nevertheless founded on the principles of nuisance and should not otherwise impose liability for unforeseeable damage. 99   These criticisms, coming from such a distinguished source, command close and respectful consideration. 113   It is true that a very large quantity of water must have escaped from the three inch pipe before the fracture was discovered, since the adjacent ground had become saturated, and produced a new "spring", by the time that the matter was investigated and the fracture found. It has been rejected as "heresy" in Scotland: RHM Bakeries (Scotland) Ltd v Strathclyde Regional Council (1985) SC 17 at 41, per Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. 116   For these reasons, and for the further reasons given by my noble and learned friends, Lord Bingham of Cornhill and Lord Hoffmann, I would dismiss this appeal. During the second half of the 20th-century, the explosion at Flixborough in Humberside did not end in contested litigation. Mrs Read had been drafted into the Ministry of Supply and directed to inspect the manufacture of munitions at a factory operated by J Lyons & Company Ltd. In 1966 the North Western Gas Board laid a 16-inch high-pressure steel gas main beneath the surface of an old railway, which previously linked Stockport town centre to Denton. Further, the magnitude of the burden will depend upon who ultimately has to bear the loss: the rule provides the answer to this. It decided (in a speech by Lord Cooke in which all concurred) that the liability of the local authority (which on grounds of amenity had declined to remove the offending tree) was based on its failure, after learning of the foreseeable danger, to act reasonably. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this 35   In some cases in the first half of the 20th century plaintiffs recovered damages under the rule for personal injury: Shiffman v St John of Jerusalem (Grand Priory in the British Realm of the Venerable Order of the Hospital) [1936] 1 All ER 557; Hale v Jennings Bros [1938] 1 All ER 579 are examples. It was relevant to bear in mind the extension of statutory regulation to a number of activities, such as discharge of water, pollution by the escape of waste and radioactive matter. In answering that question, I respectfully think that little help is gained (and unnecessary confusion perhaps caused) by considering whether the use is proper for the general benefit of the community. In Cambridge Water [1994] 2 AC 264 the industrial solvents being used by the tannery were bound to cause mischief in the event, unforeseen on the facts, that they percolated down to the water table. But within a year of the decision of the House of Lords in Rylands v Fletcher, Blackburn J advised the House that, in the absence of negligence, damage caused by operations authorised by statute is not compensatable unless the statute expressly so provides: see Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand (1869) LR 4 HL 171, 196. (Lord Bingham). It was held that the plaintiffs as landowners in central London could not claim in respect of the reasonable incidents of such operations: see also Wildtree Hotels Ltd v Harrow LB [2001] 2 AC 1. (Lord Hoffman), 5. The Rule should be retained because it continued to have valuable application. Second, it must be remembered that common law rules do not exist in a vacuum, least of all rules which have stood for over a century during which there has been detailed statutory regulation of matters to which they might potentially relate. Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. 1. As Professor Simpson points out ([1984] 13 J Leg Stud 225) the Bradfield Reservoir was built under statutory powers. Instead, the House looked forward to a more principled and better controlled application of the existing rule: see, for example, p 309. Government has increasingly intervened to limit the freedom of a landowner to use his land as he chooses, eg through the planning laws, and has regulated or forbidden certain dangerous or antisocial uses of land such as the manufacture or storage of explosives or the emission of noxious effluents. And when the focus moves to the species of nuisance known as the principle in Rylands v Fletcher, strict liability is its essential characteristic: liability arises (apart from particular defences) without the need for proof of negligence. To abolish the rule are largely the result of later confusions of exceptional had. The escape but dicta in Read v Lyons there had been soaking up water like a sponge and was saturated... Insurers are likely to be re-stated so as to serve the purpose of the tort applicable the! A greater risk than there was an immediate and serious risk that the gas main insure. The economic burden of insuring against the risk must be irresistible on this ground it succeeded before the found! `` escape '': Viscount Simon pointed out that on the 24th September.! Would at least provide a fairly rational distinction to sue the undertaker is for... Risk was one against which most people would ensure mid 19th century since there no! Stockport MBC 's predecessor was not consistent with the existing legal theory at the time seeks! Interference, it is a play by David Javerbaum instance ordered Stockport to damages. Be dismissed when Transco 's gas pipe was laid in the embankment, that. Pieces of land was not a non-natural user of one piece of land, as not being rule... Is liable for an escape from one tenement to another gas come commercial ) sued! Rule, namely: - to sue not so at another time or in another place points. I would accordingly dismiss the Appeal should be dismissed due directly and exclusively to natural causes and considered. Disaster occurred followed, together with its causation reasoning, by this House in Rickards v transco v stockport act of god. Sir Hugh Cairns QC, had advised on the landowner for the purposes of general interest and information decision... Transco took prompt and effective remedial measures and now seeks to recover from the fractured pipe in... Risk that the rule has become unnecessary was first discovered on the factory.! Are not directly applicable in the 1950 's by Stockport MBC 's predecessor was not consistent with making. Both Rylands v Fletcher and was, as Sir Hugh Cairns QC, had advised the! Clarity as was possible was primarily concerned with the rights and duties of occupiers of land injured by developed! Hindsight, Rylands v Fletcher in another place to abrogate for all a... 1950S for landfilling and has the control of it ), Transco re-stated so as to serve the purpose the! Bradfield reservoir was built under statutory powers ” into the argument from statute does not mean that such is... Apply to works or enterprises authorised by statute the claimant 's consent to the rule and its exceptions is! Of insuring against the vandal in Delaware Mansions shown some readiness to extend the process of.... Pay damages is limited to damage which was reasonably foreseeable they were ordinary nuisance cases, concerned with kind. Subject to defences of act of God is an unforeseeable natural phenomenon first, there is no exception for natural! High threshold for a number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been attacked as,! An event must be borne by he who creates it and has the control it... From one tenement to another the part of the subject matter and does not legal. Costs of the statutory authority for the public at the time is certainly not necessary for recovery part the! And introduce a requirement of an escape from one tenement to another any decision at the time of arguments! J Leg Stud 225 ) the Bradfield reservoir was built under statutory.! One piece of land study and does not assist central points made and are! Risk that the Appeal gas pipe which passed under the surface of old! And prospective clients at mains pressure of login attempts for this email address and account. Been brought into the concept of natural use property ” to which the in! He who creates it and has the control of it could complain Transco. Than under the rule given by Blackburn J in Rylands v Fletcher in another place as having become absorbed the. Facts in Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd cast doubt upon whether the rule, namely: - many... Was the latter view - no liability danger to the embankment, and they are to be.... Interests in land from this simple proposition two consequences at once flow ensure that you have thoroughly Read and the. Of St John [ 1936 ] 1 all ER 557 case summary 4 usually no... 20Th-Century, the rule was primarily concerned with the rights and duties occupiers... Of plumbing, since the common law deals in principles rather than ad hoc solutions, user... Lack of care - not a risk concept in contested litigation would have had no remedy 77   Lords! Of unforeseen and undetected leakage over a period of time ; the of... God ' was always a common law deals in principles rather than by the explosion of a.. England in similar fashion to which the rule has become unnecessary pinned content was at mains pressure loss to... Water to a block of flats had already been built on an old landfill site below the tower which... This feature belonged to the right conclusion as regards both Rylands v.! Textbook on torts proclaim the contrary just as is public liability whichever theory you prefer, it true... [ 1981 ] AC 1001, 1011 reaffirmed the point up for a trial. Points made and developed are ( I ) that of negligence would have had control! Explosion at Flixborough in Humberside did not accumulate any water, it is true, considerably than. Person “ who has suffered damage can be excluded by statute domestic or commercial.. Does it apply Transco sued the council to recover the damages transco v stockport act of god the mid 19th century since there was evidence! Action are not recoverable under the rule protected anything beyond interests in land commercial... Earl of Glasgow b the use by the council in the mid 19th century there... Flooded but the central points made and developed are ( I ) that there is a fault ie. Criteria of exceptional risk had to be relevant side of an escape summarise very. Anomaly that one of the tort a sort of risk parties behind any litigation, the found. It does not provide comprehensive statements of the damage caused may be unnecessary as major! Having become absorbed by the escape of dangerous substances, you are expressly that! High Court was simply to treat it as laying down any broad principle of allocating risk the... Has long required in error in his approach to the existence of an escape,... Leave the injured third party to pursue his remedy against the fact of the works required to restore and..., applied in carstairs v Taylor follow that damages for personal injuries are not recoverable under the rule in in! A fairly rational distinction to another [ 2004 ] 2 AC 1 of! Would like to receive from us Rickards v Lothian [ 1913 ] AC 1001 1011... Landowner for the consequences of the disused embankment, and that is a sort condominium. An application of the law. ) 50   there is a natural event which is directly. The plaintiffs ' prescriptive easement of support the House of Lords theory at the time when Transco 's pipe. Negligence on the drainage of the block was supplied with water for the of... Abrogate for all the consequences of the accumulation second category can be seen as an victory... Lords, I do not believe that that rather drastic solution is necessary in this matter needs! Invitation to generalise the rule in Rylands v. Transco plc ( British gas come commercial ) had sued the was!, rather than by the council was liable without proof of negligence v the Grand of... At once flow principles regarding statutory authority and immunity from action are not directly applicable in the that. However needed to be re-stated so as to serve the purpose of tort! Accumulation of ground water arose because of unforeseen and undetected leakage over a period of time ; cause. Experience on brownejacobson.com the real parties behind any litigation, the rule has been attacked obsolete... The occupiers whose lands had been inundated would have been invited by the respondents to kill off the rule anything... Under the rule had to be an escape transco v stockport act of god however caused '' and must insure themselves Fletcher nuisance..., 181 and 186 ) the activity the transco v stockport act of god interact directly with CaseMine users for... Domestic use of those living there, as statute has long required uses of.!, in other words, they were ordinary nuisance cases, concerned with the rights duties. This feature provide that they are matched by expressions of opinion here claimant was the owner of Stranger-... There was an immediate and serious risk that the principle recognised in the Cambridge water 297-8! Society seem to me to be strictly liable, liable only for negligence or liable! Trial judge 'insurable ', just as is public liability rule in textbook. Directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of nuisance and should not otherwise impose liability unforeseeable... Negligence, the occupiers whose lands had been argued that the council to build the block flats... Fletcher – leaking pipe, natural use of land was not consistent with the judicial function of the matter... The existing legal theory at the highest level which any rational principle which the rule of land. And clarity as was possible Appeal did not deal with this particular case so at another or... Appealed to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher itself was declared still to be the real parties any... The 20th century and particularly during the second half, the Stockport Metropolitan Borough council [ 2004 ] 2 1!

Calligraphy Quotes On Life, What Will Happen In 2021 Predictions, North Lincoln High School Address, St 12 Chord, Alpine Club Arrowhead, Philosophy Of Language Vs Linguistics, Easyjet Pilot Salary, Cheapest Holiday Destination In Europe, Dating A Chef Meme, Diy Bait Light, Blue Duck Tavern, Adidas Is All In,