[Torts] 6. Fletcher v. Rylands

[jhj2799]

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

Facts: The defendant, Rylands, contracted to build a reservoir on his land. The land was located above old coal mines connected to the mines constructed by the plaintiff, Fletcher, on a separate parcel of land. The reservoir failed, causing water to escape into the old mines, which eventually flooded the plaintiff's mines. Although the defendant had employed competent engineers and contractors, they failed to account for the old shafts in the subsoil, which were unknown to the defendant but discovered by the contractors during construction. As a result, the water from the reservoir escaped, causing damage to the plaintiff’s property.

Issue: Is the defendant, Rylands, liable for the damages caused to the plaintiff, Fletcher, by the escape of water from the defendant’s reservoir, despite the defendant’s lack of negligence?

Rule: The rule established in this case is that a person who, for their own purposes, brings onto their land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at their peril. If they fail to do so, they are prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape, regardless of whether they were negligent or not.

Application:

In this case, Rylands built a reservoir on his land, which failed and allowed water to escape into the old coal mines, subsequently flooding Fletcher's mines. The court noted that the defendant had brought something (water) onto his land that was not naturally there and that this substance caused damage when it escaped. Despite Rylands employing competent engineers and contractors, the latent defect in the subsoil (old mine shafts) allowed the water to escape. The court determined that Rylands had an absolute duty to prevent the escape of the water. The fact that the defect was unknown to Rylands and that there was no negligence on his part did not absolve him of liability. The critical factor was that Rylands had brought and kept a potentially hazardous substance on his land, which escaped and caused damage to Fletcher's property. The principle of strict liability applied, meaning that Rylands was liable for the damages caused by the escape of the water, regardless of the care taken.

Conclusion: The court concluded that the plaintiff, Fletcher, was entitled to recover damages from the defendant, Rylands, for the harm caused by the escape of water from the reservoir. The judgment of the lower court was reversed, establishing that Rylands was strictly liable for the damage caused to Fletcher's mines. This case established the doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, holding that those who engage in such activities are responsible for any resulting harm, irrespective of negligence.

Feedback & Notes:

Selecting the relevant rules of law for each fact is important for writing the exam

Property damages

• First start out from negligence or intentional torts
• Determine whether the defendant owes duty to the plaintiff
  • Duty of care must be imposed on the defendant and that must be breached
  • Duty of care extends to what point?
    • Duty to find out the latent defect? Only if it’s reasonably foreseeable (Cardozo’s view in Palsgraf case)

Cardozo’s view is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case for negligence alone à An abnormally dangerous theory should be applied additionally

-       Negligence theory should not be applied to this case? Maybe yes. Negligence is not established. OR it is impossible for the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case based on negligence. That’s why abnormally dangerous activity theory is required.

Why is it almost impossible to establish the prima facie case of negligence?

-       The duty of care to find out the latent defect should be imposed on the defendant

Four elements to establish a negligence case

1.     Duty of care: The defendant must owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. This means that the defendant had a legal obligation to act in a certain way toward the plaintiff.

2.     Breach of duty: The defendant must have breached that duty of care by failing to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. This can include actions taken or actions not taken (omissions).

3.     Causation: The plaintiff must show that the defendant's breach of duty caused their injury. This element has two components:

• Actual Cause (Cause in Fact): The plaintiff must show that the injury would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's breach.
• Proximate Cause: The plaintiff must show that the injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant's actions. This limits liability to consequences that are closely connected to the negligent act.

4.     Damages: The plaintiff must have suffered actual harm or injury as a result of the defendant's breach. This can include physical injury, emotional distress, or property damage.

You should always mention Judge Cardozo’s view and Andrew’s view in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928) with respect to the duty of care.

• Judge Cardozo's View (Majority Opinion)
  • Duty of Care: Judge Cardozo held that a duty of care is only owed to those who are within the foreseeable "zone of danger" created by the defendant’s conduct. If the plaintiff is outside this zone, the defendant does not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, and thus, no negligence claim can be established.
• Judge Andrews' View (Dissenting Opinion)
  
  • Broad Duty of Care: Everyone has a duty to avoid conduct that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to others, regardless of specific foreseeability or proximity.
  • Substantial Factor: The key question is whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
  • Contextual Consideration: The determination of liability should consider the broader context, including the relationship between the parties and the sequence of events leading to the injury.
  • Justice and Fairness: Ultimately, the decision should rest on whether it is fair and just, under all the circumstances, to hold the defendant responsible for the plaintiff's injury.
• Judge Andrews' view of the duty of care is more expansive and inclusive, emphasizing a general duty to avoid unreasonable risks, the substantial factor test for causation, and a holistic consideration of justice and fairness in determining liability.
• Under Judge Andrews' approach, in cases like Palsgraf, the focus would be less on whether the plaintiff was within a foreseeable zone of danger and more on whether the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in causing the harm and whether it is just to impose liability.

In this case, there is no prima facie case for negligence? Or is it very difficult for the plaintiff to demonstrate so that we need to apply other doctrines (e.g. res ipsa loquitur)? It’s very difficult.

Absolute duty vs reasonable duty (foreseeable)

-       Absolute duty not applied based on negligence

-       Even though defendant reasonably kept the duty of care (no negligence to the defendant’s conduct), because of the result (physical harm to the plaintiff), another theory to protect the plaintiff is required. --> abnormally dangerous activity theory (strict liability) needed; negligence theory cannot be applied because there was no negligence

Res ipsa loquitur

• Fails to satisfy the first condition; no negligence
• Focuses on conduct of the defendant
• The result itself implies negligence  

Res ipsa loquitur vs. strict liability

• Strict liability focuses on the product’s defect
  • even though defendant reasonably conducted to keep the duty of care, because of the defective condition, the injury occurred. Therefore D must be liable
• RIL focuses on the conduct of the defendant (negligence; did not perform due care)

Res ipsa loquitur, a Latin term meaning "the thing speaks for itself," is a doctrine in tort law that allows an inference of negligence when the exact cause of the injury is not known, but it is the type of injury that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. Here are some examples of situations where res ipsa loquitur might apply:

Medical Malpractice:

1. Surgical Instruments Left in a Patient:
   • A surgical instrument, such as a sponge or scalpel, is left inside a patient’s body after surgery.
2. Wrong-Site Surgery:
   • A surgeon performs an operation on the wrong limb or organ.
3. Anesthesia Accidents:
   • A patient suffers nerve damage or other injury from anesthesia, assuming proper procedures were not followed.

Transportation Accidents:

1. Plane Crashes:
   • An airplane crashes under circumstances suggesting that such an event would not occur without negligence (e.g., mechanical failure, pilot error).
2. Elevator Accidents:
   • An elevator suddenly drops or malfunctions in a manner that suggests improper maintenance or inspection.

Premises Liability:

1. Falling Objects:
   • A heavy object falls from a shelf in a store and injures a customer, indicating possible improper stacking or maintenance.
2. Collapsed Structures:
   • A building or part of a building (e.g., a balcony) collapses, suggesting poor construction or maintenance.

Product Liability:

1. Exploding Bottles:
   • A carbonated drink bottle explodes under normal handling conditions, suggesting a defect in manufacturing.
2. Defective Machinery:
   • A piece of machinery malfunctions in a way that suggests improper design or assembly.

Public Utilities:

1. Burst Water Mains:
   • A water main bursts and causes flooding, indicating possible negligence in maintenance by the water utility company.
2.  Gas Leaks:
   • A gas leak causes an explosion, suggesting improper maintenance or inspection by the gas company.

Vehicular Accidents:

1. Brakes Failure:
   • A car’s brakes fail suddenly, leading to an accident, suggesting improper maintenance or manufacturing defects.
2. Runaway Vehicles:
   • A parked car rolls away, indicating possible negligence in setting the parking brake or a defect in the vehicle.

Animal Attacks:

1. Escaped Dangerous Animals:
   • A zoo animal escapes and causes harm, suggesting negligence in maintaining secure enclosures.

Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur:

To successfully invoke the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff typically must establish three elements:

1. Control: The instrumentality or condition that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant.
2. Ordinary Course: The injury is of a type that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence.
3. No Contribution by Plaintiff: The injury was not due to any voluntary action or contribution by the plaintiff.

Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show that there was no negligence. This doctrine is particularly useful in situations where the plaintiff has limited knowledge of the facts surrounding the injury, but the nature of the incident strongly suggests that negligence was involved.

Abnormally Dangerous Activity vs. Nuisance

Abnormally Dangerous Activity:

1.     Definition: Abnormally dangerous activities involve conduct that inherently carries a high risk of serious harm to others, even when all due care is exercised.

2.     Liability:

o Strict Liability: The defendant can be held liable regardless of fault or negligence. This means the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant was careless; merely engaging in the activity is enough to establish liability.

3.     Criteria (based on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 520):

o High degree of risk of harm.
o Likelihood that the harm will be great.
o Inability to eliminate the risk by exercising reasonable care.
o Activity is not a matter of common usage. 

• It is not something that is commonly carried out by the general public. 

o Activity is inappropriate to the place where it is carried on. 

• The location exacerbates the risk or makes the activity unusually dangerous. 

o The value of the activity to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.

4.     Examples:

o Using explosives.
o Storing large quantities of hazardous chemicals.
o Radioactive Materials: Use of radioactive materials or nuclear power generation.
o High-Risk Operations: Activities such as blasting, mining, or demolition in densely populated areas.
o Keeping wild or dangerous animals.

5.     Focus:

o The activity itself is inherently dangerous. The key issue is whether the activity creates a risk of serious harm, not whether the defendant acted reasonably or negligently.

---

Nuisance:

1.     Definition: Nuisance refers to an interference with the use and enjoyment of land. It can be either private or public.

2.     Types:

o Private Nuisance: Interference with a specific individual's use and enjoyment of their property.
o Public Nuisance: Interference with rights common to the general public, affecting the community or a significant portion of it.

3.     Liability:

o Requires proof of substantial and unreasonable interference. Negligence or intentional conduct can be grounds for liability, but strict liability can apply in some cases (e.g., abnormally dangerous activities causing a nuisance).

4.     Criteria:

o Substantial Interference: The interference must be significant enough to be recognized by the law.
o Unreasonable Interference: The interference must be unreasonable. Courts often balance the utility of the defendant’s conduct against the harm to the plaintiff.
o Intentional, Negligent, or Reckless Conduct: Liability can arise from conduct that is intentional, negligent, or reckless. Strict liability can apply if the nuisance is caused by an abnormally dangerous activity.

5.     Examples:

o Noise, odors, or smoke from a factory affecting nearby residents.
o Pollution of a river used by the public for recreation.
o Blocking a public road or sidewalk.

6.     Focus:

o The impact on the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of their property. The key issue is whether the defendant's conduct significantly and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff’s rights.

---

Comparison:

1.     Nature of Activity:

o Abnormally Dangerous Activity: Focuses on activities that are inherently dangerous regardless of the care taken.
o Nuisance: Focuses on the impact of the defendant’s actions on the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of property.

2.     Liability Standard:

o Abnormally Dangerous Activity: Strict liability applies, meaning the defendant is liable without fault.
o Nuisance: Can involve negligence, intentional conduct, or strict liability if an abnormally dangerous activity causes the nuisance.

3.     Examples and Context:

o Abnormally Dangerous Activity: Involves high-risk activities like using explosives.
o Nuisance: Can arise from everyday activities if they significantly and unreasonably interfere with another's property rights, such as loud noises or unpleasant odors.

4.     Purpose:

o Abnormally Dangerous Activity: Protects the public from inherently risky activities.
o Nuisance: Protects individuals' rights to use and enjoy their property without substantial and unreasonable interference.

In summary, while both doctrines aim to protect individuals from harm, abnormally dangerous activities focus on inherently high-risk actions and impose strict liability, whereas nuisance addresses significant interferences with property rights and can involve various standards of liability.

Duty of Real Property Holder or Owner to Prevent Injury to the Plaintiff

• Example: Department Store
  • Scenario: Some people are injured by an escalator inside a department store.
  • Injury Occurring Inside the Department Store Property:
    • The real property holder or operator might be liable for the injury of people if those people are invited or visited or even trespassed.
    • Invitee: A baby injured by the escalator accident is considered an invitee. An invitee is someone who is invited to enter or remain on the premises for a commercial benefit to the property owner, such as a customer in a store.
    • Visitor vs. Licensee: A visitor or invitee is different from a licensee. A licensee is someone who is allowed to remain on the premises for their own benefit (e.g., a social guest).
    • Highest Duty of Care:
      • Invitee: The property owner owes the highest duty of care to an invitee. This includes:
        • Duty to Inspect and Maintain: The property owner must regularly inspect the premises for hazards and maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition.
        • Duty to Warn: The owner must warn invitees of non-obvious dangers that the owner knows or should know about.
        • Duty to Find Out Latent Defect: The property owner has a duty to discover and remedy latent defects (hidden dangers that are not immediately apparent) that could pose a risk to invitees.
    • Parents' Negligence:
      • Contributory Negligence: If the parents of the injured baby were negligent in supervising their child, this could potentially reduce or bar their recovery under the doctrine of contributory negligence or comparative negligence, depending on the jurisdiction.
        • Contributory Negligence: In some jurisdictions, if the plaintiff (or the plaintiff's guardians in the case of a minor) is found to be even slightly negligent, they may be barred from recovering any damages.
        • Comparative Negligence: In other jurisdictions, the plaintiff's (or their guardians') negligence might reduce the amount of damages recoverable, based on the degree of fault.
          

General Notes on Liability for Property Owners:

·         Trespassers:

o Generally, property owners owe a lower duty of care to trespassers. They must refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct that could cause harm.
o Attractive Nuisance Doctrine: An exception applies to child trespassers. Property owners may be liable if they maintain an attractive nuisance (e.g., a swimming pool) that draws children, and they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent harm.

·         Licensees:

o Property owners owe a moderate duty of care to licensees. They must warn licensees of known, non-obvious dangers that the licensees are unlikely to discover on their own.

·         Invitees:

o As noted, property owners owe the highest duty of care to invitees, requiring active measures to ensure the premises are safe and to warn of potential hazards.

We always first try to establish prima facie case for both sides (plaintiff & defendant) à you mention defenses for the defendant / even though you’re trying to make an argument for the plaintiff, you should discuss counterarguments or objections; Without the counterarguments, your answer will be really simple.

Intentional torts: how many defenses?

1.     Consent: The plaintiff consented to the defendant's conduct, which can be express (explicitly stated) or implied (inferred from actions or circumstances).

2.     Self-Defense: The defendant used reasonable force to protect themselves from harm or threatened harm.

3.     Defense of Others: The defendant used reasonable force to protect another person from harm or threatened harm.

4.     Defense of Property: The defendant used reasonable force to protect their property from being damaged or invaded.

5.     Privilege of Authority: The defendant was acting under the authority of law, such as a police officer making a lawful arrest.

6.     Necessity: The defendant acted to prevent a greater harm from occurring, which can be:

• Public Necessity: Actions taken to prevent harm to the public at large.
• Private Necessity: Actions taken to prevent harm to the defendant or their property.

7.     Discipline: Certain individuals (e.g., parents or teachers) may use reasonable force to discipline children.

8.     Legal Justification: The defendant's actions were justified under the law, such as using reasonable force to eject a trespasser.

9.     Insanity: The defendant was not capable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of their actions due to a mental disorder.

10.  Duress: The defendant was forced to act under the threat of immediate harm to themselves or others.

11.  Statute of Limitations: The plaintiff’s claim is barred because it was not filed within the legal time limit for bringing the lawsuit.

12.  Authority of Law: The defendant acted according to a legal right or duty, such as carrying out a lawful arrest.

Specific Defenses to Certain Torts:

·         False Imprisonment:

o Shopkeeper's Privilege: A shopkeeper may detain a suspected shoplifter for a reasonable period if they have probable cause to believe theft occurred.

·         Defamation:

o Truth: The statement made was true.
o Privilege: The statement was made in a context that provides immunity from liability, such as during legislative proceedings (absolute privilege) or in certain professional settings (qualified privilege).
o Opinion: The statement was a subjective opinion rather than a factual assertion.

·         Assault and Battery:

o Consent: The plaintiff consented to the act.
o Self-Defense and Defense of Others: As noted above, the use of reasonable force to prevent harm.

Defenses for Negligence

There are several defenses available for negligence claims. These defenses can either completely bar recovery or reduce the amount of damages the plaintiff can recover. Here are the common defenses for negligence:

1.     Contributory Negligence:

o This defense argues that the plaintiff also acted negligently and contributed to their own harm. In jurisdictions that follow pure contributory negligence, any degree of plaintiff’s negligence bars recovery completely.

2.     Comparative Negligence:

o Pure Comparative Negligence: The plaintiff’s damages are reduced by their percentage of fault, regardless of how great that percentage is.
o Modified Comparative Negligence: The plaintiff can recover damages only if their fault is below a certain threshold (usually 50% or 51%). If the plaintiff is equally or more at fault than the defendant, they cannot recover any damages.

3.     Assumption of Risk:

o The plaintiff knew of a dangerous condition and voluntarily exposed themselves to it. This defense can be either:
- Express Assumption of Risk: The plaintiff explicitly agreed to assume the risk, often through a written agreement.
- Implied Assumption of Risk: The plaintiff's actions imply that they understood and accepted the risk.

4.     Act of God (Force Majeure):

o The harm was caused by a natural event that was unforeseeable and beyond the defendant’s control, such as an earthquake, flood, or lightning strike.

5.     Statute of Limitations:

o The plaintiff's claim is barred because it was not filed within the legally prescribed time limit for bringing a lawsuit. The time limit varies depending on the type of claim and jurisdiction.

6.     Waiver:

o The plaintiff voluntarily relinquished a known right to sue, often through a contractual agreement.

7.     Necessity:

o The defendant acted out of necessity to prevent a greater harm, which can be either:
- Public Necessity: Actions taken to prevent harm to the public.
- Private Necessity: Actions taken to prevent harm to the defendant’s own property or interests.

8.     Emergency:

o The defendant acted reasonably in response to a sudden and unexpected emergency, even if their actions would otherwise be considered negligent.

9.     Comparative Fault of Third Parties:

o The harm was caused, at least in part, by the negligence of a third party not involved in the lawsuit. This can reduce the defendant's liability proportionately.

10.  Governmental Immunity:

o In some cases, government entities and employees are immune from liability for certain actions performed within their official capacities.

Examples of Defenses in Application

·         Contributory Negligence:

o If a pedestrian is hit by a car but was jaywalking at the time, the driver can argue contributory negligence.

·         Comparative Negligence:

o In a car accident where both drivers are at fault, each driver’s compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault.

·         Assumption of Risk:

o A person attending a baseball game assumes the risk of being hit by a foul ball.

·         Act of God:

o A homeowner cannot be held liable for injuries caused by a tree falling during an unforeseen hurricane.

Defenses for Strict Liability  

Defenses for strict liability claims are more limited than those for negligence because strict liability does not depend on the defendant’s level of care or intent. However, several defenses can still be raised:

1.     Assumption of Risk:

o The plaintiff knew of the risk associated with the activity or product and voluntarily chose to encounter it.
o Example: A person who enters a zoo enclosure after being warned of the danger assumes the risk of injury from an animal attack.

2.     Comparative Fault:

o The plaintiff’s own negligence contributed to their injury. Some jurisdictions allow this defense to reduce the amount of damages the plaintiff can recover, even in strict liability cases.
o Example: A plaintiff improperly assembling a product despite clear instructions may have their damages reduced if their misuse contributed to their injury.

3.     Misuse of Product:

o The plaintiff used the product in a way that was not intended or reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer, and this misuse caused the injury.
o Example: A plaintiff using a power tool for a purpose not intended by the manufacturer (e.g., using a drill as a hammer) cannot hold the manufacturer strictly liable if the misuse caused the injury.

4.     State of the Art Defense:

o The defendant can argue that the product conformed to the highest level of scientific and technical knowledge available at the time it was manufactured. This defense is more commonly used in product liability cases.
o Example: A pharmaceutical company can argue that it followed the best scientific knowledge available at the time when a drug was developed.

5.     Statutory Compliance:

o The defendant complied with all relevant laws and regulations governing the design, manufacture, and labeling of the product. This may not be a complete defense but can be relevant to the case.
o Example: A toy manufacturer complying with all federal safety standards for children’s toys might use this compliance as a partial defense in a product liability case.

6.     Act of God (Force Majeure):

o The harm was caused by an extraordinary and unforeseeable natural event, which could not have been prevented even with the exercise of reasonable care.
o Example: Damage caused by an earthquake to a structure designed to withstand typical conditions might be defended on the grounds that the earthquake was an extraordinary event.

7.     Intervening Cause:

o An unforeseeable and independent event occurred after the defendant’s act that contributed to or caused the harm.
o Example: If a third party tampered with a product after it left the manufacturer’s control, causing harm to the plaintiff, the manufacturer might argue that the tampering was an unforeseeable intervening cause.

8.     Statute of Limitations:

o The claim is barred because it was not filed within the legally prescribed time limit.
o Example: A claim brought years after an injury caused by a defective product may be dismissed if it exceeds the statutory time limit for filing such claims.

Two kinds of defenses:

1)     absolute defense (defendant can attack the requirement of the prima facie case; e.g. no intent to contact, no causation, no result) 

2)     affirmative defense: counterargument other than the requirement of the prima facie case, e.g. insanity defense, coercion, minority

The difference between absolute defenses and affirmative defenses lies in how they function to prevent or limit liability in legal cases.

Absolute Defense

Definition: An absolute defense is one that, if proven, completely negates the plaintiff's claim and results in a dismissal of the case. It attacks the fundamental elements of the plaintiff's prima facie case.

Function: Absolute defenses assert that one or more of the essential elements required to establish the plaintiff's case are missing. Without these elements, the plaintiff's claim cannot succeed.

Examples:

1. Lack of Duty: In a negligence case, the defendant can argue that they owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.
2. No Breach: The defendant can argue that they did not breach the duty of care owed to the plaintiff.
3. No Causation: The defendant can argue that their actions did not cause the plaintiff's injury.
4. No Damages: The defendant can argue that the plaintiff did not suffer any actual harm or damages.

Affirmative Defense

Definition: An affirmative defense is a defense in which the defendant introduces new evidence or arguments that, if proven, will mitigate or eliminate liability, even if the plaintiff's claims are true. It does not dispute the elements of the plaintiff's prima facie case but provides a legal justification or excuse for the defendant's conduct.

Function: Affirmative defenses concede that the plaintiff has made a prima facie case but argue that there are additional facts or legal principles that should prevent or limit the defendant’s liability.

Examples:

1. Consent: In an intentional tort case, the defendant can argue that the plaintiff consented to the conduct.
2. Self-Defense: The defendant can argue that their actions were justified as self-defense.
3. Assumption of Risk: The defendant can argue that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the known risks associated with an activity.
4. Statute of Limitations: The defendant can argue that the plaintiff’s claim is barred because it was not filed within the legal time limit.
5. Comparative Negligence: The defendant can argue that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injury, potentially reducing the damages.

Because negligence requires evidence that is hard to prove, strict liability (focus on the product) may be applied to the manufacturer

Exam tips

-       First try to establish prima facie case for the plaintiff and then move to defenses for both sides in the structure of IRAC.

-       Write out the defense in the Application part of IRAC

-       If the issue requires you to answer affirmative / absolute defense, you may write down in your issue statement.

-       Limit the writing of your answer; only mention the main issue; choose the more specific issue statement (General one is not taken for a point); in what sense is defendant liable (e.g. consent, reasonable duty of care, abnormally dangerous activity, etc)