Rylands v Fletcher
The tort in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) came into being as a result of the Industrial
Revolution during the 18th and 19th centuries. In Rylands, the courts created a new tort
to deal with fires, floods or escape of fumes that caused damage to neighbouring land
by making industrialists strictly liable for any damage they caused, regardless of
whether they could have taken precautions to prevent the damage.
Rylands v Fletcher
The defendant had paid independent contractors to make a reservoir on his land. The
contractors discovered shafts which joined up a mine on neighbouring land. When the
reservoir was filled, the water from it burst through the shafts and flooded the claimant’s
mine. The defendant himself had not been negligent, since there was no way he could
have known about the shafts, and nor could he be vicariously liable for the contractors
who were not his employees. An action for trespass was unavailable because the
damage was not direct, and at the time the tort of nuisance could not be applied to an
isolated escape. The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable in tort,
upholding the judgement of Blackburn J, which defined the rule: ‘A person who, for his
own purposes, brings on his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it
escapes, must do so at his peril, and if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable
for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape’. In order to succeed in a
claim under Rylands v Fletcher, the claimant must prove the following five requirements.
ELEMENTS OF THE TORT
1. Defendant must control the
land
Firstly, the defendant must control the land in which the dangerous thing is brought
onto.
Smith v Scott
A local authority let a house to a homeless family, and the family’s behaviour was so
intolerable that their neighbour tried to sue the local authority on the basis of Rylands v
Fletcher. However, it was held that the rule could not be applied to the landlord of
tenants, as control of the land would lie with the tenants.
A defendant can also incur liability for bringing a dangerous thing onto the highway, if it
then escape onto the claimant’s land.
, Rigby Chief Constable of Northamptonshire
Police attempting to capture a psychopath fired CS gas from the highway into the shop,
setting it on fire. It was held that the rule did apply to the escape of things from the
highway.
2. A
ccumulation of something for
unnatural use of land
Secondly, the defendant must have brought or accumulated something for some
unnatural use of the land.
Giles v Walker
The defendant ploughed up forest land, this resulted in thistles growing there. The
thistle seeds blew onto neighbouring land. The defendant was held not liable under
Rylands v Fletcher because thistles grew naturally and had not been introduced by him.
From the late 19th century, increasing industrialisation led the courts to hold that
industrial activity was a natural use of land.
Rickards v Lothian
A tap on the defendant’s floor was turned and it caused a flood which damaged the
claimant’s stock. The defendant was held not liable, since he was making an ordinary
use of the building. The court defined non-natural use as some special use bringing with
it increased danger to others. It must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such
a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.
British Celanese v A H Hunt
The defendants owned a factory on an industrial estate. Strips of their metal foil
escaped from the factory and blew onto an overhead cable, causing a power failure at
the claimant’s factory. The defendants were held not liable under Rylands because
given where their factory was sited, theirs could not be called a non-natural use of land.
The tort in Rylands v Fletcher (1868) came into being as a result of the Industrial
Revolution during the 18th and 19th centuries. In Rylands, the courts created a new tort
to deal with fires, floods or escape of fumes that caused damage to neighbouring land
by making industrialists strictly liable for any damage they caused, regardless of
whether they could have taken precautions to prevent the damage.
Rylands v Fletcher
The defendant had paid independent contractors to make a reservoir on his land. The
contractors discovered shafts which joined up a mine on neighbouring land. When the
reservoir was filled, the water from it burst through the shafts and flooded the claimant’s
mine. The defendant himself had not been negligent, since there was no way he could
have known about the shafts, and nor could he be vicariously liable for the contractors
who were not his employees. An action for trespass was unavailable because the
damage was not direct, and at the time the tort of nuisance could not be applied to an
isolated escape. The House of Lords held that the defendant was liable in tort,
upholding the judgement of Blackburn J, which defined the rule: ‘A person who, for his
own purposes, brings on his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it
escapes, must do so at his peril, and if he does not do so, he is prima facie answerable
for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape’. In order to succeed in a
claim under Rylands v Fletcher, the claimant must prove the following five requirements.
ELEMENTS OF THE TORT
1. Defendant must control the
land
Firstly, the defendant must control the land in which the dangerous thing is brought
onto.
Smith v Scott
A local authority let a house to a homeless family, and the family’s behaviour was so
intolerable that their neighbour tried to sue the local authority on the basis of Rylands v
Fletcher. However, it was held that the rule could not be applied to the landlord of
tenants, as control of the land would lie with the tenants.
A defendant can also incur liability for bringing a dangerous thing onto the highway, if it
then escape onto the claimant’s land.
, Rigby Chief Constable of Northamptonshire
Police attempting to capture a psychopath fired CS gas from the highway into the shop,
setting it on fire. It was held that the rule did apply to the escape of things from the
highway.
2. A
ccumulation of something for
unnatural use of land
Secondly, the defendant must have brought or accumulated something for some
unnatural use of the land.
Giles v Walker
The defendant ploughed up forest land, this resulted in thistles growing there. The
thistle seeds blew onto neighbouring land. The defendant was held not liable under
Rylands v Fletcher because thistles grew naturally and had not been introduced by him.
From the late 19th century, increasing industrialisation led the courts to hold that
industrial activity was a natural use of land.
Rickards v Lothian
A tap on the defendant’s floor was turned and it caused a flood which damaged the
claimant’s stock. The defendant was held not liable, since he was making an ordinary
use of the building. The court defined non-natural use as some special use bringing with
it increased danger to others. It must not merely be the ordinary use of the land or such
a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.
British Celanese v A H Hunt
The defendants owned a factory on an industrial estate. Strips of their metal foil
escaped from the factory and blew onto an overhead cable, causing a power failure at
the claimant’s factory. The defendants were held not liable under Rylands because
given where their factory was sited, theirs could not be called a non-natural use of land.
