| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Rylands v Fletcher ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Rylands v Fletcher
''Rylands v Fletcher'' () (UKHL 1 ) was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir, playing no active role in its construction. When the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts improperly filled with debris(waste), they chose to continue work rather than properly blocking them up. The result was that on 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands's reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher brought a claim under negligence, through which the case eventually went to the Exchequer of Pleas.〔Simpson (1984) 212 & 243〕 The majority ruled in favour of Rylands; however, Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed, both by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in ''Rylands v Fletcher''"; that "the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief 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".〔Bohlen (1911) 300〕 No right "to enjoy property" exists in UK black-letter law, and it is this decision upon which stare decisis is built in the area.
This doctrine was further developed by English courts, and made an immediate impact on the law. Prior to ''Rylands'', English courts had not based their decisions in similar cases on strict liability, and had focused on the intention behind the actions rather than the nature of the actions themselves. In contrast, ''Rylands'' imposed strict liability on those found detrimental in such a fashion without having to prove a duty of care or negligence, which brought the law into line with that relating to public reservoirs and marked a significant doctrinal shift. Academics have criticised it, however, both for the economic damage such a doctrine could cause and for its limited applicability.
The tort of ''Rylands v Fletcher'' has been disclaimed in various jurisdictions, including Scotland, where it was described as "a heresy that ought to be extirpated",〔 and Australia, where the High Court chose to destroy the doctrine in ''Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd''. Within England and Wales, however, ''Rylands'' remains valid law, although the decisions in ''Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc'' and ''Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council'' make it clear that it is no longer an independent tort, but instead a sub-tort of nuisance.
==Facts==
In 1860, John Rylands paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land, intending that it should supply the Ainsworth Mill with water. Rylands played no active role in the construction, instead contracting out to a competent engineer. While building it, the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts and passages under the land filled loosely with soil and debris, which joined up with Thomas Fletcher's adjoining mine.〔Bohlen (1911) 298〕 Rather than blocking these shafts up, the contractors left them.〔Elliott (2007) 288〕 On 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands's reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher's mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937 worth of damage.〔Simpson (1984) 212〕 Fletcher pumped the water out, but on 17 April 1861 his pump burst, and the mine again began to flood. At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and the sunken coal shafts were discovered.〔Simpson (1984) 241〕 Fletcher brought a claim against John Rylands, the owner, and Jehu Horrocks, the manager of Rylands's reservoir〔Simpson (1984) 239〕 on 4 November 1861.〔Simpson (1984) 242〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Rylands v Fletcher」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|