-----Original
Message-----
From: Lewis KLAR
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:18 PM
To: Stephen Offei; Jason Neyers
Subject: Re: ODG:The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The
principle of Rylands v Fletcher is still applicable in
Canadian tort law, as a principle distinct from both nuisance
and negligence, but is hardly ever employed. There are very few
reported cases. I think the reasons for this are the following:
First,
the non-natural user requirement has frequently eliminated from
its purview activities which although dangerous are "ordinary".
I do not think this interpretation of "non-natural use"
is the only interpretation which can be ascribed to the term,
and I would prefer non-natural use to refer to the level of danger
posed by the activity, rather than the utility or ordinariness
of the activity, but many courts do not seem to see it this way.
This broader interpretation would give the principle more scope
and utility.
Second,
nuisance has been used in Canadian law to accidental one off escapes
which cause property damage or even personal injury. This I think
is regrettable and I would prefer the more classical view of nuisance,
which would eliminate these "accidental" occurrences
and relegate them to negligence law. But if Canadian courts persist
in extending nuisance law to these accidental escape type cases,
Rylands v Fletcher becomes more redundant.
Third,
negligence law is clearly capable in most instances of dealing
with abnormally dangerous activities. So again Rylands
is displaced.
