Whether use of land in ordinary course of enjoyment
If a fire escapes from the Robinsons’ barbecue and consumes their neighbour’s greenhouse it seems only right that they (meaning in most cases their liability insurers) should not be liable if they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an accident. Instinctively, one would be less forgiving if the source of the blaze had been a beacon lit once a year to celebrate the defeat of the Great Armada. Why should the neighbour be exposed to a risk that he would not normally contemplate?
With such thoughts in mind, it is hardly surprising that strict liability, under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, cannot be incurred where the defendant was lawfully using his land for a purpose associated with its ordinary enjoyment.
In the language of the older cases, the claimant has to show a “non-natural” use of the land — which is all very well until it comes to advising upon what is likely to be considered “natural” in a particular locality and at a particular point in time. And come to think of it, when and where did barbecue parties first come to be seen as “ordinary enjoyment”?
With a dearth of recent authority on this aspect of the Rylands rule, no adviser can afford to ignore the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 212; [2001] EGCS 27, where, disagreeing with the trial judge, the rule was held not to apply to the use of a 3-inch pipe to supply water to an 11-storey block of flats.
Whether use of land in ordinary course of enjoyment
If a fire escapes from the Robinsons’ barbecue and consumes their neighbour’s greenhouse it seems only right that they (meaning in most cases their liability insurers) should not be liable if they had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent such an accident. Instinctively, one would be less forgiving if the source of the blaze had been a beacon lit once a year to celebrate the defeat of the Great Armada. Why should the neighbour be exposed to a risk that he would not normally contemplate?
With such thoughts in mind, it is hardly surprising that strict liability, under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, cannot be incurred where the defendant was lawfully using his land for a purpose associated with its ordinary enjoyment.
In the language of the older cases, the claimant has to show a “non-natural” use of the land — which is all very well until it comes to advising upon what is likely to be considered “natural” in a particular locality and at a particular point in time. And come to think of it, when and where did barbecue parties first come to be seen as “ordinary enjoyment”?
With a dearth of recent authority on this aspect of the Rylands rule, no adviser can afford to ignore the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 212; [2001] EGCS 27, where, disagreeing with the trial judge, the rule was held not to apply to the use of a 3-inch pipe to supply water to an 11-storey block of flats.
