{"title":"19. 莱兰兹诉弗莱彻案下的行动","authors":"Kirsty Horsey, E. Rackley","doi":"10.1093/he/9780198718499.003.0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868]. The rule holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier of that land is liable for the damage to another caused as a result of the escape, irrespective of fault. The rule today is best understood through a trilogy of cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] and Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]. The development of the rule has led to an increased overlap with ideas from nuisance and negligence.","PeriodicalId":53781,"journal":{"name":"Tort Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"19. Actions under the rule of Rylands v Fletcher\",\"authors\":\"Kirsty Horsey, E. Rackley\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/he/9780198718499.003.0019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter examines the rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868]. The rule holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier of that land is liable for the damage to another caused as a result of the escape, irrespective of fault. The rule today is best understood through a trilogy of cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] and Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]. The development of the rule has led to an increased overlap with ideas from nuisance and negligence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tort Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tort Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198718499.003.0019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tort Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198718499.003.0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本章考察了Rylands v Fletcher[1868]案中的规则。该规则认为，如果在非自然使用土地的过程中发生了危险物品的泄漏，该土地的占有者对由于泄漏而对他人造成的损害负有责任，无论其过失如何。今天，这一规则可以通过三个案例得到最好的理解:Rylands诉Fletcher, Cambridge Water Co Ltd诉Eastern Counties Leather plc[1994]和Transco诉Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council[2004]。该规则的发展导致妨害和过失的概念越来越多地重叠。
This chapter examines the rule from Rylands v Fletcher [1868]. The rule holds that where there has been an escape of a dangerous thing in the course of a non-natural use of land, the occupier of that land is liable for the damage to another caused as a result of the escape, irrespective of fault. The rule today is best understood through a trilogy of cases: Rylands v Fletcher, Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] and Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004]. The development of the rule has led to an increased overlap with ideas from nuisance and negligence.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
