| 单词 | Rylands v Fletcher, rule in |
| 释义 | Rylands訴Fletcher之原則 A rule of strict liability that a person who for his own purpose brings on his lands, collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it 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: Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330. This rule only applies where the user of the land is otherwise than natural: Leeth & Co Ltd v Mack & Co [1978] HKLR 333. The right of action is not limited to adjoining occupiers: Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772 (CA). This rule only applies where the user of the land is otherwise than natural: Leeth & Co Ltd v Mack & Co [1978] HKLR 333. A defendant may avoid liability if (1) the escape of the thing is caused by an act of God (Dixon v Metropolitan Board of Works (1881) 7 QBD 418); (2) the escape is due to the act of a stranger over whose acts the defendant had no control and which was not an act which he ought reasonably to have anticipated and guarded against (Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd [1956] 1 All ER 154, 1 WLR 85 (CA)); (3) the escape was due to some act or default of the person who suffers the damage (Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co (1872) LR 8 QB 42); (4) the presence of the thing which escapes has been consented to by the plaintiff (A Prosser & Son Ltd v Levy [1955] 3 All ER 577, 1 WLR 1224 (CA)); and (5) the thing has been brought onto the land from which it escapes under statutory authority (Department of Transport v North West Water Authority [1984] AC 336, [1983] 3 All ER 273 (HL)). See also Escape of dangerous things; Occupier’s liability. 嚴格法律責任的規則：為其自己的目的，在其土地帶來，收集及保存任何如盜出，會相當可能作出損害的東西的人，必須承擔保存的責任，如他未能做到，則表面上須對所有因溢出的自然後果的損害負責：Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330。如土地使用者並非自然的使用者，則才可引用此原則：Leeth & Co Ltd v Mack & Co [1978] HKLR 333。訴訟權並不限於毗鄰的佔用人：Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772 （英國上訴法院）。如 (1) 有關東西的溢出由天災導致 (Dixon v Metropolitan Board of Works (1881) 7 QBD 418)；(2) 有關的溢出是由非當事人導致，而被告不能控制該非當事人的行為，及並非他應已合理地預計及防止的行為(Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd [1956] 1 All ER 154, 1 WLR 85 （英國上訴法院）)；(3) 有關的溢出是由蒙受損害的人的行為或不行為導致 (Dunn v Birmingham Canal Co (1872) LR 8 QB 42)；(4)原告同意存在東西的溢出 (A Prosser & Son Ltd v Levy [1955] 3 All ER 577, 1 WLR 1224 （英國上訴法院）)；及(5)根據法規授權在有關的土地帶來可溢出的東西 (Department of Transport v North West Water Authority [1984] AC 336, [1983] 3 All ER 273 （上議院）)，則被告可免除法律責任。另見 Escape of dangerous things; Occupier’s liability。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。