Defences (AQA A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Defences to Rylands v Fletcher
Introduction to defences
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability on defendants who bring something onto their land that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes. However, several defences can be raised to avoid liability. Understanding these defences is crucial for answering problem questions and evaluation questions on this topic.
This content will be assessed in Paper 2 of the AQA A-Level Law examination.
While Rylands v Fletcher creates strict liability (meaning the claimant doesn't need to prove fault), defendants are not completely without protection. The four defences discussed in these notes provide ways for defendants to escape liability even when the strict liability rule would otherwise apply.
The four main defences
Act of a stranger
This defence provides complete protection for the defendant when the escape was caused by the deliberate or negligent act of a third party (a stranger) over whom the defendant had no control.
For this defence to succeed, two key elements must be established:
- The defendant had no control over the stranger
- The stranger's actions could not have been reasonably foreseen by the defendant
The defence will fail if the defendant could have exercised control over the stranger's actions or if the interference was foreseeable.
Case Example: Perry v Kendricks Transport Limited (1956)
Facts: The defendant kept an old coach on their land. A young boy was injured when other boys threw a lit match into the coach's petrol tank, causing an explosion.
Outcome: The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher because the act bringing about the escape was caused by a stranger over whom they had no control. The actions of the boys were not reasonably foreseeable.
Legal Principle: Where a stranger's deliberate actions cause the escape, and those actions could not have been anticipated, the defendant has a complete defence.
Case Example: Ribee v Norrie (2000)
Facts: The defendant owned property that had been converted into a hostel. A fire started due to a discarded cigarette, which spread to the claimant's home, causing personal injury and property damage.
Outcome: The court held that the defendant did have control over the third party's actions because it was within their power to prohibit smoking on the property. Therefore, the act of a stranger defence was unavailable.
Legal Principle: The defence fails where the defendant could have exercised control over the stranger's conduct.
Key Distinction - Control is Critical
The key distinction between Perry v Kendricks and Ribee v Norrie lies in the degree of control the defendant could exercise over the stranger's conduct. If the defendant has the ability to prevent or regulate the stranger's actions (as in Ribee v Norrie), the defence will fail.
Act of God
An Act of God refers to an extraordinary natural event that occurs entirely independently of any human action or intervention. This might include exceptional storms, earthquakes, or lightning strikes that are so unusual they could not reasonably be anticipated.
The meaning of this defence is identical to its meaning in private nuisance, though different case examples are used to illustrate the principle.
Case Example: Carstairs v Taylor (1871)
Facts: The claimant stored rice in the ground floor of a warehouse leased from the defendant, who used the upper floor. A rat gnawed through a gutter box that drained water from the roof. During heavy rainfall, the roof leaked and damaged the claimant's rice.
Outcome: The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher because the heavy rain combined with the actions of the rat were classified as an Act of God - natural events beyond human control.
Legal Principle: Extraordinary natural events that occur independently of human action and could not reasonably be anticipated provide a complete defence.
The Awareness Rule
Once an occupier becomes aware of a problem caused by an Act of God, they may become liable if they fail to remedy it within a reasonable time. This qualification prevents defendants from using the defence to avoid responsibility indefinitely after becoming aware of a hazard.
Statutory authority
This defence applies when the defendant is acting under powers granted by statute (an Act of Parliament). If a statute authorizes the defendant to do something that results in an escape, they will have a complete defence to a claim under Rylands v Fletcher.
The defence has the same meaning as under private nuisance, but different case examples are used.
Case Example: Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co. (1894)
Facts: A water main burst, causing damage to the claimant's land. The defendant was under a statutory obligation to maintain high pressure in the water main, and any escape would inevitably cause damage.
Outcome: The defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher because they had the defence of statutory authority - they were acting in accordance with their statutory duty.
Legal Principle: Where a defendant acts under statutory powers, they have a complete defence to Rylands v Fletcher liability.
Limits of Statutory Authority
The key requirement is that the defendant must not exceed what was authorized by statute. If they go beyond their statutory powers, the defence will fail. The protection only extends as far as the statute permits.
Consent or benefit
This defence operates when the claimant receives a benefit from the dangerous thing that the defendant has accumulated on their land. In such circumstances, the claimant may be deemed to have consented to the accumulation of that thing, and therefore cannot complain if it escapes.
The principle is that where someone benefits from a potentially dangerous installation or substance, it would be unfair to allow them to claim compensation if an escape occurs.
Case Example: Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (1943)
Facts: The claimant's shop was damaged when pipes from the theatre's sprinkler system burst.
Outcome: The court held that the sprinkler system was equally for the benefit of the claimant's property (providing fire protection), so the claimant was deemed to have consented to its presence. Therefore, the defendant theatre was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher.
Legal Principle: Where the claimant benefits from the dangerous accumulation, they are deemed to have consented to its presence and cannot claim if it escapes.
This defence recognizes that the claimant cannot accept the advantages of a system or accumulation while denying responsibility for the risks it creates.
Comparing defences across torts
Several of these defences have the same meaning in both Rylands v Fletcher and private nuisance:
- Act of God operates identically in both torts, though different case examples illustrate the principle
- Statutory authority also has the same meaning across both torts, with different illustrative cases
Understanding these parallels can help you apply defences correctly in problem questions where multiple torts may be relevant. The legal principles are the same, but you should use the appropriate case authority depending on which tort you're discussing.
Exam guidance
How to Approach Defences in Exam Questions
For problem questions:
- Identify which defence(s) may be available to the defendant
- Apply the legal test from the relevant case law
- Use case comparisons (e.g., Perry v Kendricks vs Ribee v Norrie) to argue whether the defence applies
- Consider whether the defendant exceeded any statutory authority or whether they had control over a stranger's actions
For evaluation questions:
- Consider whether these defences strike a fair balance between claimants and defendants
- Evaluate whether strict liability should be subject to so many defences
- Discuss whether the defences are too broad or too narrow
- Assess whether reform is needed in this area
Remember to use clear case authority for each defence and explain the legal principle that emerges from each case, not just the facts.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
There are four main defences to Rylands v Fletcher: act of a stranger, Act of God, statutory authority, and consent/benefit
-
Act of a stranger requires both lack of control and lack of foreseeability (compare Perry v Kendricks with Ribee v Norrie)
-
Act of God must be an extraordinary natural event - once the defendant becomes aware of it, they must remedy it within a reasonable time
-
Statutory authority only protects defendants if they do not exceed what the statute authorizes (Green v Chelsea Waterworks)
-
Consent/benefit applies where the claimant benefits from the dangerous accumulation (Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre)
-
Several defences have the same meaning in both Rylands v Fletcher and private nuisance, though different cases illustrate them
Mnemonic: Remember SACS - Stranger, Act of God, Consent, Statutory authority