Perry v Kendricks [1956] 1 WLR 85

Key point

  • An occupier is not liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for the acts of a stranger causing the escape unless he could have reasonably anticipated and guarded against it

Facts

  • Children climbed into D’s land and threw a match into D’s motor coach, resulting in an explosion
  • The explosion injured C, a child who was standing near D’s land
  • C claim that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applied

Held (Court of appeal)

  • D was not liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Parker LJ

  • Even assuming that personal injury came under the scope of Rylands v Fletcher, D could not be liable
  • D came within the exception to the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher where the escape is caused by a stranger, unless C could show that the act which caused the escape was of a kind which the D could reasonably anticipate and guard against
  • D failed to do so as it was not foreseeable that children will trespass onto D’s land and throw a match onto D’s motor coach