The defendants had a store of machinery in inflammable packings, together with a quantity of petroleum, acetylene and paints. A neighbour claimed from fire damage.
Held: They were liable for the damage when fire broke out and escaped to the neighbouring property. He found that the circumstances of the storage amounted to a non-natural user and that consequently the Defendants were liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, irrespective of negligence and the Act of 1774.
Judges:
Mackenna J
Citations:
[1967] 2 QB 530
Statutes:
Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774
Citing:
Cited – Rylands v Fletcher CEC 1865
Mr Fletcher’s Lancashire coal mine was flooded by the water from Mr Rylands’ mill reservoir in 1860-61.
Held: Mr Rylands was responsible. Blackburn J said: ‘We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings . .
Cited by:
Cited – LMS International Ltd and others v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd and others TCC 30-Sep-2005
The claimants sought damages after their premises were destroyed when a fire started in the defendants neighbouring premises which contained substantial volumes of styrofoam. They alleged this was an unnatural use of the land.
Held: To . .
Explained – Johnson v B J W Property 2002
Judge Thornton QC said: ‘With respect to Mackenna J, however, the narrow meaning given to the Act which so concerned him is one that is particularly appropriate given the Act’s historical origins since the fire in question had not escaped . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Nuisance, Negligence
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.230978