Sample Case Sheet: Rylands v Fletcher
A2 Level Law – Case and Statute Sheet for 4.2.3 Rylands v Fletcher
🔹 Statutory Basis
Although Rylands v Fletcher is a common law tort, not a statutory tort, its application and limitation have been shaped and clarified through judicial interpretation in several leading cases. It has not been codified in statute in the UK, but is considered part of tort law relating to strict liability.
🔹 Core Case: Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
Citation: (1868) LR 3 HL 330
Facts: Rylands constructed a reservoir that burst and flooded Fletcher’s coal mine due to latent defects.
Held: A person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, is strictly liable for any damage resulting from its escape.
Key Principle: Strict liability for non-natural use of land resulting in the escape of a dangerous thing.
🔹 Essential Case Law Shaping the Tort
1. Read v Lyons & Co Ltd (1947)
Citation: [1947] AC 156
Key Point: No liability under Rylands because there was no escape from the defendant’s premises.
2. Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc (1994)
Citation: [1994] 2 AC 264
Key Point: Introduced the requirement of reasonable foreseeability of harm into the Rylands tort. Tightened the test.
3. Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003)
Citation: [2003] UKHL 61
Key Point: Reinforced Rylands as a subset of private nuisance, not a standalone tort. Also ruled that supplying water through domestic pipes was not a non-natural use.
4. Stannard v Gore (2012)
Citation: [2012] EWCA Civ 1248
Key Point: Escape must involve the dangerous thing itself, not merely fire resulting from it.
5. Nichols v Marsland (1876)
Citation: (1876) 2 Ex D 1
Key Point: Act of God defence was upheld – unusually heavy rain caused man-made lakes to flood.
6. Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956)
Citation: [1956] 1 WLR 85
Key Point: Act of a third party (stranger) was accepted as a valid defence to a Rylands claim.
7. Giles v Walker (1890)
Citation: (1890) 24 QBD 656
Key Point: No liability because the defendant did not bring the weeds onto their land – they were naturally occurring.
8. Dunne v North Western Gas Board (1964)
Citation: [1964] 2 QB 806
Key Point: Rylands does not apply when the use is ordinary and benefits the public (gas supply in this case).
🔹 Defences in Rylands v Fletcher
| Defence | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Act of God | Natural events so unprecedented they could not be anticipated (Nichols v Marsland) |
| Act of a third party | Stranger’s unforeseeable actions causing the escape (Perry v Kendricks) |
| Consent of the claimant | Claimant voluntarily accepted the risk |
| Statutory authority | If use is authorised by statute |
| Default of the claimant | If claimant caused the escape through their own negligence |
🔹 Key Elements to Prove Liability under Rylands v Fletcher
- Accumulation: Defendant must have accumulated a substance or object on their land.
- Non-natural use: The use must be extraordinary, not typical of everyday domestic/industrial purposes.
- Dangerous thing: The object/substance must pose foreseeable danger if it escapes.
- Escape: The substance must escape the defendant’s control or land.
- Damage: Actual damage must result from the escape.
🔹 Modern Interpretation
- The tort is now considered a subset of nuisance and has limited application after Transco and Cambridge Water.
- Courts prefer to use negligence or nuisance where possible, especially with the added requirement of foreseeability.