Sample Notes: Rylands v Fletcher

A2 Level Law – Detailed Notes: 4.2.3 Rylands v Fletcher (Strict Liability) Topic: Tort – Rylands v Fletcher Rule

Introduction to Rylands v Fletcher

• A landmark English case that introduced the principle of strict liability in tort law.
• Established that a person who brings and keeps something likely to cause harm onto their land may be held liable if it escapes and causes damage.
• This tort does not require negligence – liability is imposed regardless of fault once certain conditions are met.

Key Case Summary: Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

• Facts: Defendant built a reservoir on his land. Water escaped and flooded a disused mine connected to the plaintiff’s working mine.
• Held: Defendant was held liable for the escape, even though he wasn’t negligent.
• Legal Principle: A person who brings onto his land something likely to cause harm if it escapes is strictly liable for any damage caused.

Nature of Strict Liability in Rylands v Fletcher

• Liability is imposed even without negligence or wrongful intent.
• Based on the idea that “the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes” must keep it at his peril.

Four Key Elements of Rylands v Fletcher

1. Accumulation
   • The defendant must bring or accumulate something onto their land.
   • Case: Giles v Walker (1890): No liability for natural accumulation (e.g. weeds naturally spreading).
2. Non-natural Use of Land
   • Use must be extraordinary and unusual.
   • Case: Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003): Domestic water supply was not considered a non-natural use.
   • Examples of non-natural use: chemicals, explosives, large water tanks.
3. Thing Likely to Do Mischief if It Escapes
   • The substance must be dangerous.
   • Case: Shiffman v The Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem (1936): A flagpole fell and caused injury.
   • Includes gas, oil, electricity, poisonous fumes, water.
4. Escape
   • The substance must escape from the defendant’s land to another’s property.
   • Case: Read v Lyons (1947): No escape = no liability under Rylands.

Relationship with Other Torts

• Nuisance vs Rylands:
  • Nuisance requires interference with enjoyment of land.
  • Rylands requires escape of a dangerous substance.
• Negligence vs Rylands:
  • Negligence focuses on breach of duty of care.
  • Rylands imposes strict liability even if no fault is proven.
• Trespass vs Rylands:
  • Trespass requires direct interference.
  • Rylands applies when the harm is indirect (via escape).

Defences to Rylands v Fletcher

1. Act of God
   • Extraordinary natural event that could not be anticipated or prevented.
   • Case: Nichols v Marsland (1876): Unprecedented storm excused liability.
2. Consent of the Claimant (Volenti non fit injuria)
   • If claimant consented to the accumulation or use.
3. Act of a Stranger
   • An unforeseeable act by a third party beyond the defendant’s control.
   • Case: Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd (1956): Stranger threw match into petrol tank.
4. Statutory Authority
   • If the accumulation was authorized by law or regulation.
5. Default of the Claimant
   • If damage was caused by claimant’s actions.

Modern Position and Limitations

• Rylands v Fletcher is now considered a subset of nuisance rather than a separate tort.
• Courts are reluctant to expand its application.
• The strictness has been narrowed:
  • Only applies to non-natural and dangerous uses of land.
  • No liability unless actual damage occurs due to escape.

Relevance Today

• Limited but still relevant in cases involving:
  • Chemical or toxic leaks
  • Environmental hazards
  • Industrial accidents

Key Cases Summary Table