[Torts] 6. Fletcher v. Rylands (1866)

[허지예]

Fletcher v. Rylands --- L.R. 1 Exch. 265 (1866)

Fact

The defendant(D)'s had construction site to build a reservoir, which is located on top of old coal mines that are connected to the mines constructed by the plaintiff(P) on a separate parcel of land. The reservoir fails, and water falls into the old mines, making it flooded. Even though D hired competent engineers to construct the reservoir, D didn't acknowledge P's mine was under the construction site, nor did his workers. P sued D for the damage, and the judgement was for D. P appealed. 

Issue

Whether a landowner is strictly liable for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous substance accumulated on his land, even without negligence.

Rule

-Holding:

A person who brings on his lands and collects for his own purposes and keeps there anything likely to mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he failed to do so, he would be liable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape, unless it was the act of God or P's own default.

-Supporting authority:

Tenant v. Goldwin

"It behoves him to use his common so that he shall do no hurt to another man, and if the land in which he has common be not enclosed, it behoves him to keep the beasts in the common and out of the land of any other."

Application

Here, D's reservoir failed and consequently made P's land flooded. D is liable for P because the flood was the natural consequence of the collapse of the reservoir and was unreasonably dangerous. Like the owner of cattle must keep them from escaping, D had a duty to keep the water confined within the reservoir, irrespective of the fact that neither his competent employees nor he knew the old mines under the reservoir. Even without D’s negligence, the reservoir is unreasonably dangerous if it escapes, and D failed to keep it in his place and harmed P’s property. Therefore, D is strictly liable for all the natural consequences of the collapse of the reservoir construction.

Conclusion

Judgement reversed.

<동영상 리뷰>

-가장 어려웠던 질문

Q: 나를 위해 일하지만 보수를 받는 고용인은 invitee인가 licensee인가? 

내 답변: 본인의 이익을 위해서도 방문하고 주인의 이익을 위해서도 방문했기 때문에 구분이 쉽지 않았다.

A: 본인의 이익을 위해 일하긴 하지만 주인의 이익을 위해서 초대받은 자이기 때문에 invitee이다. 자기 물건을 팔러 오는 salesman과는 다르다.

-내가 잘못 생각한 질문

Q: 무면허 배달기사를 고용한 피자가게 주인이 기사의 죽음에 대해 책임이 있나?

내 답변: 무면허임을 알고도 고용하고 운전을 하도록 했다면 사고를 예측할 수 있었을 것이고, 기사의 안전에 대한 의무를 위반했으므로 오토바이 운전 미숙으로 일어난 사고에 대해서도 책임을 져야 한다. (foreseeability)

A: 무면허와 죽음은 인과관계가 너무 멀다. 무면허라고 해서 꼭 죽는 것은 아니다. 주인이 기사가 안전하게 운전하는지 관리 감독할 의무도 없다. 따라서 가게 주인은 기사의 죽음에 대해 의무 위반이 없다. (causation)

-정리

Strict liability: 과실이 없어도 책임이 있음.

Intentional torts처럼, Negligence와는 다른 Torts liability의 한 종류이다.

따라서 Negligence와 달리 피고의 과실을 따지지 않는다.

<strict liability>

1. abnormally dangerous activity

2. product liability

3. property owner liability (premises liability) – invitee, licensee, trespasser (법의 세분화)