The rule in Rylands v Fletcher1 does not apply where the claimant has expressly or impliedly consented to the defendant's accumulation of the thing which escapes2. In many cases in which this exception operates the thing is kept on premises for the common benefit of the claimant and the defendant and, in some cases, consent and common benefit have been regarded as two separate and independent exceptions to the rule3. However, it seems that the true basis of this exception is consent and that common benefit is only an element in showing implied consent
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN
TAKE A FREE TRIAL
0330 161 1234