The claimant rented commercial space on the second floor of a building owned by the defendant. Someone maliciously flooded the fourth floor toilets by blocking sinks and turning on taps, causing water to flood down and damage the claimant's property on the second floor. The claimant sued the defendant based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, arguing he suffered damage from the escape of water from the defendant's premises.
The claimant rented commercial space on the second floor of a building owned by the defendant. Someone maliciously flooded the fourth floor toilets by blocking sinks and turning on taps, causing water to flood down and damage the claimant's property on the second floor. The claimant sued the defendant based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, arguing he suffered damage from the escape of water from the defendant's premises.
The claimant rented commercial space on the second floor of a building owned by the defendant. Someone maliciously flooded the fourth floor toilets by blocking sinks and turning on taps, causing water to flood down and damage the claimant's property on the second floor. The claimant sued the defendant based on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, arguing he suffered damage from the escape of water from the defendant's premises.
Example of the case law is Rickards v Lothian 1913 AC 263.
The fact of this case is that in
February 1913, the claimant rented premises on the second floor of a building that was used for commercial purposes and ran a business from the premises he was renting. The defendant was the owner of that building. He leased the building in parts to various business tenants. The case arose because someone had maliciously blocked all the sinks in the toilets on the fourth floor of the defendant’s building. The same person had then turned on all the taps, clearly with the intention of causing a flood and therefore causing damage. Eventually, the flooding on the fourth floor travelled down to the second floor and damaged the property of the claimant. The claimant then started the case, basing himself on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher arguing that he had suffered damage as a result of the escape of the water from the defendant’s premises.