Rylands v Fletcher – Case Summary

Legal Case Summary

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330

Liability under Rylands v Fletcher is regarded as a specific type of nuisance, a form of strict liability, where the defendant may be liable without having been negligent. 

Short Case Name(s): Rylands / Rylands v Fletcher

Table of Contents:

• Introduction
• Requirements
• Remedies
• Defences
• Information for Journalists

Introduction

In Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. They filled the reservoir with water. As a result, water flooded through the mineshafts into the plaintiff’s mines on the adjoining property. The plaintiff secured a verdict at Liverpool Assizes. The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords affirmed their decision.

Requirements

It was decided by Blackburn J, who delivered the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and the House of Lords, that to succeed in this tort the claimant must show:

1. That the defendant brought something onto his land;
2. That the defendant made a “non-natural use” of his land (per Lord Cairns, LC);
3. The thing was something likely to do mischief if it escaped;
4. The thing did escape and cause damage.

Foreseeability

There is now a further requirement, according to the House of Lords, that harm of the relevant type must have been foreseeable.

Requirements in Rylands v Fletcher

1. The defendant brought something onto his land

In law, there is a difference between things that grow or occur naturally on the land, and those that are accumulated there artificially by the defendant. For example, rocks and thistles naturally occur on land. However, the defendants in Rylands v Fletcher brought water onto the land.

2. Non-natural use of the land

In the House of Lords, Lord Cairns LC, laid down the requirement that there must be a non-natural use of the land.

Recent examples are:

Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997) 81 BLR 101, [1997]CLY 3864

3. Something likely to do mischief

The thing brought onto the land must be something likely to do mischief if it escapes. In such a situation the defendant keeps it in at his peril.

4. Escape

There must be an escape of the dangerous substance from the defendant’s land.

5. Foreseeability

See above for the Cambridge Water Case (1994).

Remedies in Rylands v Fletcher

The owner of land close to the escape can recover damages for:

1. Physical harm to the land itself (as in Rylands v Fletcher) and to other property.

2. It is no longer clear if a claimant can recover for personal injury.

Defences in Rylands v Fletcher

A number of defences have been developed to the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

1. Consent

The express or implied consent of the claimant to the presence of source of the danger, provided there has been no negligence by the defendant, will be a defence.

2. Common Benefit

If the source of the danger was maintained for the benefit of both the claimant and defendant, the defendant will not be liable for its escape. This defence is either related to the defence of consent or the same thing. According to Winfield & Jolowicz, p551, “common benefit seems redundant (and indeed misleading) as an independent defence”.

3. Act of a stranger

The defendant will not be liable if a stranger was responsible for the escape.

Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263. The D was not liable when an unknown person blocked a basin on his property and caused a flood, which damaged a flat below.

4. Statutory authority

A statute may require a person or body to carry out a particular activity. Liability under Rylands v Fletcher may be excluded upon the interpretation of the statute.

5. Act of God

An act of God is an event which ‘no human foresight can provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility’ (per Lord Westbury, Tennent v Earl of Glasgow (1864) 2 M (HL) 22 at 26-27).

Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 ExD 1. Exceptionally heavy rain caused artificial lakes, bridges and waterways to be flooded and damage adjoining land. The D was not liable.

However, Nichols v Marsland was doubted by the House of Lords in:

Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway [1917] AC 556. The corp. constructed a concrete paddling pool for children in the bed of a stream and obstructed the natural flow of the stream. Owing to a rainfall of extraordinary violence the stream overflowed at the pond and damaged the property of the plaintiffs. Held that the extraordinary rainfall did not absolve the corp. from responsibility and that they were liable in damages.

6. Default of the claimant

If the escape is the fault of the claimant there will be no liability. Alternatively, there may be contributory negligence on the part of the claimant.

Information for Journalists

Rylands v Fletcher, decided in 1868, is a landmark British legal case that established a principle in tort law (a branch of law involving civil wrongs) known as the “rule in Rylands v Fletcher.” This case is important for journalists to understand because it deals with liability for damage caused by hazardous activities.

Background of the Case:

• Parties Involved: The case involved two parties: Thomas Fletcher, who operated a coal mine, and John Rylands, a mill owner.
• The Incident: Rylands had constructed a reservoir on his land to supply water to his mill. Fletcher’s coal mines were located on adjacent land. The reservoir was built over disused mine shafts connected to Fletcher’s mines. When the reservoir was filled, water broke through the old shafts and flooded Fletcher’s mines.
• The Lawsuit: Fletcher sued Rylands for the damage caused to his coal mines.

Key Aspects of the Case:

• No Fault Liability: The significant point in this case was that Rylands was held liable even though he had not been negligent. This is known as strict liability, where a person is legally responsible for the consequences of an activity regardless of fault or intention.
• Use of Land: The case established that a person who brings something onto his land, which is likely to cause harm if it escapes, is liable for any damage caused if it does escape.
• “Non-natural” Use of Land: The court determined that the storage of large quantities of water in a reservoir was a “non-natural” use of land (an unusual or special use that increases the risk of harm).

Implications of the Case:

• Precedent for Strict Liability: This case set a precedent for imposing strict liability for inherently dangerous activities. This means if someone engages in an activity that is potentially dangerous and something goes wrong, causing harm to others, they can be held liable even if they were not negligent.
• Influence on Environmental and Industrial Regulations: The principle from this case is often applied in environmental and industrial contexts, where businesses are held responsible for damages caused by hazardous materials or activities.