7/27/2019 Fletcher v.docx
1/2
Fletcher v. Rylands, 3 H. & C. 774, 159 Eng Rep 737 (Ex.
1865).
Case Summary
Facts:Rylands (D) possessed a piece of property but did not have
rights to the mines and veins
of coal under the surface. Fletcher (P) possessed coal mines
located near Rylands property. Dconstructed a reservoir on his
property above an abandoned coal mine that was connected to Ps
mines below the surface. The shafts of the abandoned mine below
Ds property had been filled in
with soil and D did not know or suspect that there was an
abandoned mine below the surface.
When the reservoir was filled, water flowed into Psmines causing
the mine to shut down. P
sued D for damages and lost profits.
Issue:Can a party be liable for trespass for damage caused to
the land of another, if the damage
is a result of a defect in the partys land, if the party did not
know of the defect?
Holding and Rule:No. There must be negligence to create a
liability. If there is no negligence,the loss falls upon the
damaged party. D was not liable for the damage cased to Ps land
becausethere was no trespass. To be liable for trespass, the damage
would have had to have been
immediate. Since in this case the damage was consequential
rather than immediate there was no
trespass. D was not liable in this case because he was not aware
of any damage to his land.
Disposition:For D; no trespass.
Bradford Corporation v Pickles [1895]
[Tort negligence - duty of care - proving fault - malice not
normally relevant]
D owned land containing underground streams which fed C's
(Bradford Corporation)
waterworks. D began to sink shafts for the alleged purpose of
draining certain beds ofstone. The effect of Ds operations was to
affect seriously the supply of water to appellants
springs. The corporation alleged that defendant was not acting
in good faith, but to compelthem to purchase his land.
Held:D has the right to divert or appropriate the water within
his own land so as to deprivehis neighbour of it. His right is the
same whatever his motive may be, whether genuinely to
improve his own land, or maliciously to injure his neighbour, or
to induce his neighbour tobuy him out.
No use of property which would be legal if due to a proper
motive can become illegal if it isprompted by a motive which is
improper or even malicious.
Stephens vMyers(1830)CA
[Assault threatening actions sufficient]D advanced towards V
with his fists raised but wasstopped by another person before
coming within
striking range. Following an argumentHeld: It was enough that V
was put in apprehension
even though the battery (the actual striking)
neveroccurred.Guilty
