File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: The Merits of Rylands v Fletcher
Title | The Merits of Rylands v Fletcher |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Civil negligence Damage Duty of care (Law) History of law Judges Judicial process Land Land ownership Laws, regulations and rules Legal liability Negligence Nuisance law Nuisances Personal injury damages Private nuisance law Rule of law Strict liability Tort law Torts |
Issue Date | 2004 |
Publisher | Oxford University Press. |
Citation | Oxford journal of legal studies, 2004, v. 24, n. 4, p. 643-669 How to Cite? |
Abstract | English and Australian judges have, over the past few decades, severely questioned the juridical distinctiveness and utility of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The popular assertion in this country has been that the rule is really only a sub-species of the law of private nuisance. By contrast, the Australian judiciary has abandoned the rule altogether, preferring to expand the law of negligence to capture the rule's former territory. This article seeks to defend the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. In particular it asserts that, by reference to their historical origins, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and the law of private nuisance can be seen to be quite different creatures. It also argues that there is strong case for the rule's continued vitality, and that it would be a grave mistake to abandon it in favour of a yet more expansive law of negligence. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/328655 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.386 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Murphy, J | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-07-05T08:49:54Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-07-05T08:49:54Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2004 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Oxford journal of legal studies, 2004, v. 24, n. 4, p. 643-669 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0143-6503 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/328655 | - |
dc.description.abstract | English and Australian judges have, over the past few decades, severely questioned the juridical distinctiveness and utility of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The popular assertion in this country has been that the rule is really only a sub-species of the law of private nuisance. By contrast, the Australian judiciary has abandoned the rule altogether, preferring to expand the law of negligence to capture the rule's former territory. This article seeks to defend the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. In particular it asserts that, by reference to their historical origins, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and the law of private nuisance can be seen to be quite different creatures. It also argues that there is strong case for the rule's continued vitality, and that it would be a grave mistake to abandon it in favour of a yet more expansive law of negligence. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Oxford University Press. | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Oxford journal of legal studies | - |
dc.subject | Civil negligence | - |
dc.subject | Damage | - |
dc.subject | Duty of care (Law) | - |
dc.subject | History of law | - |
dc.subject | Judges | - |
dc.subject | Judicial process | - |
dc.subject | Land | - |
dc.subject | Land ownership | - |
dc.subject | Laws, regulations and rules | - |
dc.subject | Legal liability | - |
dc.subject | Negligence | - |
dc.subject | Nuisance law | - |
dc.subject | Nuisances | - |
dc.subject | Personal injury damages | - |
dc.subject | Private nuisance law | - |
dc.subject | Rule of law | - |
dc.subject | Strict liability | - |
dc.subject | Tort law | - |
dc.subject | Torts | - |
dc.title | The Merits of Rylands v Fletcher | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/ojls/24.4.643 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 24 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 643 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 669 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Oxford | - |