The development in rylands v fletcher and how it is relevant to modern society/overlap
with other torts
Introduction:
There has been great debate in recent years as to the applicability of the rule held in
Rylands v Fletcher, and whether it is still relevant in law. The rule will be discussed before
analysing how its relevance has been diminishing due to the courts approach and creation
of strict applicability. Whether it should be consumed as a subset of negligence or Nuisance
will also be looked at, or whether those torts already cover the realm of Rylands v fletcher
due to its recent development. The case of Colour Quest will also be analysed to see
whether the tort is in fact ‘alive and kicking’ before concluding that although there are
limited circumstances that the tort can be used, this fact alone does not make the tort
irrelevant.
What is the Law in Rylands v Fletcher?
The tort of Rylands v Fletcher establishes supposedly strict liability when there has been an
escape of a dangerous thing in the court of a non-natural use of land, where the occupier of
that land is liable for the damage caused to another irrespective of fault.
The tort was developed in order to pre-empt the damages of the ravages of
industrialisation, which created risks for those who worked in and around factories, allowing
for claims in newly created risks that parliament had not yet regulated. Further to this, the
courts wanted to try and compensate for the externalised risks put on the community by
business enterprises for carrying out such activities.
Restriction of the rule and courts tightening of the rule
The courts have been uncomfortable with imposing strict liability without fault, and so there
have been a number of developments that allow inroads to the strictness of this tort,
predominantly within the foreseeability, artificial controls and defences. Due to the fact that
they are uncomfortable with this position, they have tightened each limb significantly
throughout time.
The requirements needed for a claim to stand have been severely restricted. You need to
have a proprietary interest in the land to sue which fundamentally alters the tort. It
originally was not a tort against protecting proprietary interests, and fundamentally alters
the characteristics of who it protects, turning a tort protecting from injury to proprietary
interests. You also cannot sue for personal injury and pure economic loss. Further restricting
the tort.
Firstly, the first limb that the defendant brings something onto his land likely to do mischief
has seen the courts restrict the scope of liability hugely. The developments of Transco,
which limits claims to exceptional high risks of accumulation, prevents claims which were
previously allowed, such as the collection of water in large volumes (Rylands), or noxious
fumes (West v Bristol Tramways), as they would be unlikely to succeed in arguing they are
exceptional. In fact, all authority pre- Transco could be queried in whether it would meet
with other torts
Introduction:
There has been great debate in recent years as to the applicability of the rule held in
Rylands v Fletcher, and whether it is still relevant in law. The rule will be discussed before
analysing how its relevance has been diminishing due to the courts approach and creation
of strict applicability. Whether it should be consumed as a subset of negligence or Nuisance
will also be looked at, or whether those torts already cover the realm of Rylands v fletcher
due to its recent development. The case of Colour Quest will also be analysed to see
whether the tort is in fact ‘alive and kicking’ before concluding that although there are
limited circumstances that the tort can be used, this fact alone does not make the tort
irrelevant.
What is the Law in Rylands v Fletcher?
The tort of Rylands v Fletcher establishes supposedly strict liability when there has been an
escape of a dangerous thing in the court of a non-natural use of land, where the occupier of
that land is liable for the damage caused to another irrespective of fault.
The tort was developed in order to pre-empt the damages of the ravages of
industrialisation, which created risks for those who worked in and around factories, allowing
for claims in newly created risks that parliament had not yet regulated. Further to this, the
courts wanted to try and compensate for the externalised risks put on the community by
business enterprises for carrying out such activities.
Restriction of the rule and courts tightening of the rule
The courts have been uncomfortable with imposing strict liability without fault, and so there
have been a number of developments that allow inroads to the strictness of this tort,
predominantly within the foreseeability, artificial controls and defences. Due to the fact that
they are uncomfortable with this position, they have tightened each limb significantly
throughout time.
The requirements needed for a claim to stand have been severely restricted. You need to
have a proprietary interest in the land to sue which fundamentally alters the tort. It
originally was not a tort against protecting proprietary interests, and fundamentally alters
the characteristics of who it protects, turning a tort protecting from injury to proprietary
interests. You also cannot sue for personal injury and pure economic loss. Further restricting
the tort.
Firstly, the first limb that the defendant brings something onto his land likely to do mischief
has seen the courts restrict the scope of liability hugely. The developments of Transco,
which limits claims to exceptional high risks of accumulation, prevents claims which were
previously allowed, such as the collection of water in large volumes (Rylands), or noxious
fumes (West v Bristol Tramways), as they would be unlikely to succeed in arguing they are
exceptional. In fact, all authority pre- Transco could be queried in whether it would meet
