Rylands v Fletcher [1868] is the founding authority for a tort of strict liability for the escape of dangerous accumulations from land.

Facts of the Case

In 1860, the defendant (Rylands), a mill owner, engaged independent contractors to build a reservoir to supply his mill. Unknown to him, the site sat over abandoned mine shafts connecting to the plaintiff’s (Fletcher’s) adjoining colliery. The contractors discovered the shafts but failed to reinforce them; when filled, the reservoir’s water burst through and flooded the plaintiff’s mine. Though the defendant was not personally negligent and had chosen his contractors with care, he was held liable.

Key Legal Principles

  • Blackburn J (Exchequer Chamber): a person who, for their own purposes, brings onto land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at their peril, and is prima facie answerable for all damage that is the natural consequence of its escape.
  • Lord Cairns LC (House of Lords): added the requirement of “non-natural user”, distinguishing natural accumulation from the introduction of something not naturally there.
  • Escape: there must be an escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant’s land or control to a place outside it.

What the Case is Authority For

An occupier who brings a non-natural and potentially mischievous substance onto their land is responsible for the consequences of its escape, regardless of precautions. It remedies damage to land or interests in land, not personal injury.

Interesting Points and Academic Commentary

  • Relationship to other torts: often described as a “sub-species of nuisance” for isolated, “one-off” escapes; unlike negligence, it needs no breach of a duty of care.
  • Evolving “non-natural use”: in 1919 a motorcar in a garage was non-natural (a “newcomer”), whereas storing domestic water is now routine and “natural”.
  • Foreseeability: Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994) added that the type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable.
  • Scepticism: Lord Bingham in Transco (2004) remarked that the “intellectual effort” devoted to the rule had “brought forth a mouse”, its significance dwindling amid expanded negligence and statutory regulation.

Related Cases

Establishing and refining the rule

  • Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994): foreseeability of the type of damage is required; storing chemicals on industrial premises is a “classic case” of non-natural use.
  • Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2004): a remedy for damage to land only (no personal injury); the use must be “extraordinary and unusual”.

“Escape” and “accumulation”

  • Read v J Lyons & Co (1947): an explosion inside a factory was no “escape” from the defendant’s control.
  • Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore (2012): for fire, the fire itself must be brought onto the land and escape; here tyres were accumulated but fire escaped, so the rule did not apply.
  • Giles v Walker (1890): the rule does not apply to natural accumulations (self-sown thistles).
  • British Celanese v AH Hunt (1969) & Mason v Levy Autoparts (1967): examples of mischievous accumulations; Mason noted that large quantity and storage conditions contributed to non-natural use.

Defences

  • Rickards v Lothian (1913): the “act of a third party” defence; “ordinary plumbing” is natural use.
  • Perry v Kendricks Transport (1956): reaffirmed the third-party defence.
  • Nichols v Marsland (1876): the “Act of God” defence for unforeseeable natural events.
  • Dunn v Birmingham Canal Navigation Co (1892): “default of the claimant”.
  • Green v Chelsea Waterworks (1874) & Charing Cross Electricity v Hydraulic Power (1914): statutory authority — liability avoided under a statutory duty but not a mere statutory power.
  • Carstairs v Taylor (1871): consent to an accumulation for a common benefit.