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" You seem to be misunderstanding my motives somewhat, but that is irrelevant.
In addition, the law changes rapidly and sometimes with little notice so from time to time, an article may not be up to date. This fact was unknown by Rylands. Rylands employed engineers and contractors to build the reservoir. Those were good suggestions - except for the ill tempered tone. The true result of Cambridge Water is that there is a remoteness limit on damages for Rylands type liability, but foreseeability of harm is not a requirement of liability - only a cap on quantum.
Your new version, while a large improvement on previous tweaks and following WP: I appreciated the long quotations and the actual description of events themselves, I just get a general sense that the parts criticizing the case are piling on, not only doing so to convey information.
Collins and Marshall v. In comparison, however, to the English decisions, U. Even according to the references Simpson, they cite themselves, the names of the involved parties are in reverse.
Rylands was the mine owner who sued Fletcher the mill owner and reservoir builder.
A subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence Rylands v fletcher economic harm, raising the legal burden of proof but not invalidating Rylands as precedent law. Even municipalities cannot exclude miners.
Fletcher brought a claim under negligencethrough which the case eventually went to the Exchequer of Pleas. We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
Two of the judges thought that the rule did not apply to personal injuries. An excerpt from the judgment is useful to state what the law is - this is important so that readers can understand what was actually said in the case, and even more useful when there is no such available passage elsewhere on the web.
Bencherlite comes in for a third opinion? Nye by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. LAWimage The template you are linking to has no template configured yet. The reference system used is perfectly acceptable; there is no requirement for OSCOLA Your changes and reversions violate policy in multiple ways Your alterations also use completely nonstandard headings and needlessly collect in some places and break up in others the material.
To be simply a special sub-rule of the law of private nuisance dealing with damage caused by isolated estates of dangerous substances from land.
Blackburn J spoke on behalf of all the judges and said that: I just scanned the article and it reads like it is more concerned with eradicating Rylands from common use and the point of Wikipedia should be to educate, not insert a judgment even though it is a judgment.
Also, the citations of the New Hampshire Court and the HK law journal are not particularly weighty or influential. The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. Unfortunately I do not have time to do it right now.Rylands v.
Fletcher Court of Exchequer, England - Facts: D owned a mill. In order to supply it with water, they leased some land from Lord Wilton and built a reservoir on it.
The legal definition of Rylands v. Fletcher, the Rule in is Strict liability for landowners for damage caused by dangerous substances which.
Rylands v Fletcher  UKHL 1 House of Lords The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The reservoir was placed over a disused mine.
Water from the reservoir filtered. In Rylands v Fletcher () LR 3 HLthe defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
The rule in rylands vs fletcher. Rylands v Fletcher  UKHL 1 was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Fletcher employed contractors to build a reservoir, playing no active role in its construction. When the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts improperly filled with debris, they chose to continue work .Download