|
A ‘person who for his own purposes brings on his land… anything likely
to do mischief if it escapes… is prima facie answerable for all the
damage which is the natural consequence of its escape’.
This is, of course, a basic summary of the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
[1873]. As was noted in Cambridge Water [1994]: ‘the storage of
substantial quantities of chemicals on industrial premises should be
regarded as an almost classic case of non-natural use’. By way of
contrast, piping a water supply from a mains to a water storage tank in
a block of flats will, these days, be regarded as a ‘natural or ordinary’
use of land (Transco [2003]).
How should those principles be applied to a fire which started in a
factory which manufactured polystyrene blocks? It was held that Rylands
v Fletcher applied. Manufacture of the polystyrene involved inflammable
materials, and also the use of cutters that were known to be a fire risk
(following earlier HSE inspections). Moreover, the defendant’s use of the
land was ‘non-natural’; here, the damage was not caused by an
‘everyday element of modern life’ (as in Transco [2003]), but by the use
of land for a specific manufacturing purpose.
As such, it is a good illustration of how Rylands v Fletcher can still apply
in the modern world. In addition, there is one other point worth
mentioning. Lord Hoffmann, in Transco [2003], suggested that Rylands
v Fletcher would not apply if there were specific statutory Regs relating
to the hazard in question; the judge in this case agreed with that,
pointing out that there were no Regs that applied ‘directly’ to the items
being stored (as opposed to there being general fire and HSE Rules), but
it is an argument that may well be raised by defendants in future cases.
LMS International v Styrene Packaging [2005] EWHC 2065, noted in
http://property.practicallaw.com/4-201-4036.
|
