Ch19 Exam Prep Actions Uder The Rule Of Rylands V Fletcher

Chapter 19: Actions uder the rule of Rylands v Fletcher

Test Bank

Type: true-false

Title: Chapter 19 Question 01

1) True or False: Rylands v Fletcher introduced strict liability in relation to isolated escapes of things from land.

a. True

b. False

Type: fill-in-blank

Title: Chapter 19 Question 02

2) In Rylands v Fletcher, Blackburn J formulated the rule as follows:

‘the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do _____ if it escapes, must keep it in 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’.

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 19 Question 03

3) When Rylands v Fletcher reached the House of Lords, a further requirement (to establish liability under the rule) was added by Lord Cairns. What was it?

a. That the defendant must be engaging in non-natural use of land

b. That the defendant must have been careless

c. That the defendant must have caused the escape

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 19 Question 04

4) Over 100 years after Rylands v Fletcher, a fourth requirement (to establish liability under the rule) was added, in the case Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994]. What was it?

a. That the escape was caused by carelessness

b. That the defendant must have been able to foresee the consequences of an escape

c. That the defendant must have caused the escape

Type: true-false

Title: Chapter 19 Question 05

5) True or False: Claiming under Rylands v Fletcher has become easier since the House of Lords decision in Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]

a. True

b. False

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 19 Question 06

6) Why was there no liability in Read v Lyons?

a. Because the use of the land was natural

b. Because the escape had not been foreseeable

c. Because there hadn’t been an escape

Type: fill-in-blank

Title: Chapter 19 Question 07

7) In Read v Lyons [1947], Lord Macmillan expressed his doubts (obiter) about using the rule in Rylands v Fletcher to claim damages for personal injury. He said:

‘as the law stands an allegation of _________ is in general essential to the relevancy of an action for reparation for personal injuries’.

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 19 Question 08

8) Why was there no liability in Rickards v Lothian?

a. Because the use of the land was natural

b. Because the escape had not been foreseeable

c. Because there hadn’t been an escape

Type: true-false

Title: Chapter 19 Question 09

9) True or False: The claim in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] did not succeed because the harm suffered (a polluted water supply) was considered an unforeseeable consequence of the chemical spillages.

a. True

b. False

Type: multiple choice question

Title: Chapter 19 Question 10

10) What has happened to the Rylands v Fletcher rule in Australia?

a. It has been subsumed into the law of nuisance

b. It has been subsumed into the law of trespass

c. It has been subsumed into the law of negligence