An Opinion Assesses Fancy Fertiliser 's Liability Under The Rule Of Ryland 's And Fletcher
1103 Words5 Pages
TO: Olo Dictum and Areta Obiter, Senior partners
FROM: Kate Thompson
RE: Damage from Contamination
This opinion assesses Fancy Fertiliser’s liability under the rule in Ryland’s and Fletcher.
Was the hydrofluorosilicic acid likely to cause mischief?
The rule established in Ryland’s and fletcher is that anything likely to cause mischief, if it escapes refers to “beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches.” In the case of Cambridge Water Co and Eastern Counties Leather, the chemical perchloroethene (for tanning leather) was the culprit of contamination and it was ruled that it was included as something used to cause mischief if it escaped. We can use this ruling to decide that the hydrofluorosilicic acid was likely to cause mischief.
Did the hydrofluorosilicic acid escape?
In the case of Read and Lyons, escape was defined as “where a thing goes from an area under the defendants control to an area outside their control.” In both instances of the chemical entering the student flats and from the truck to the toitū early settler’s museum the chemicals had left the defendants facility to an area outside of their control. Therefore it can be established that the chemical did indeed escape.
Was the hydrofluorosilicic acid brought onto the land?
In Ryland’s and Fletcher it is established that it is a necessity for absolute liability therefore the literal interpretation be taken; being that they introduced something onto the land that was not there before. In this case the fertiliser and