LAW 122 CASE LAW-Questions and Answers |
New 2025/2026 Update | With Complete Solutions
Rylands v Fletcher
1868
House of Lords
Lord Cairns LC, Lord Cranworth LJ
What is the principle of law in Rylands v Fletcher?
Any man who brings on to his land an collects and keeps it there for a non-natural use,
something which may cause mischief if it escapes, and it escapes, he is liable for all the damage
which is the natural consequence of the escape, even if he has taken due care to prevent it.
What are the parts of Blackburn's Test?
1. The defendant brought onto his land and collected and kept there something which could
cause mischief if it escaped.
2. Did the things escape and cause mischief?
3. Was the use of the land (in bringing the thing onto it) a non-natural use?
4. Was damage of the relevant kind foreseeable?
5. Are there any defences available?
What were the two defences established by Blackburn J
,- Vis Major
- The escape owing to the fault of the plaintiff.
What was the historical context behind Rylands v Fletcher?
- There had been 3 notable water escape disasters in the 15 years before Rylands.
What were the material facts in Rylands v Fletcher?
- Rylands had employed seemingly skilled people to build a reservoir on land that had previously
been mined.
- When the reservoir was filled, it broke.
- Water passed down the horizontal mine shafts and down down into the coal mine of the
plaintiff, causing damage.
- The defendants themselves were not negligent.
What is the issue in Rylands v Fletcher
If a person brings water onto his or her land, which without negligence on their part, escapes and
causes damage to another person's land, will they be liable to damages?
What elements of Blackburn's Judgement indicated foreseeability?
'Likely to cause mischief'
'That he knew'.
What was the original notion of non-natural intended to mean?
- something that was not on the land 'in its natural condition'.
- something that is not naturally occurring there.
, - introducing something in a quantity that is not normal.
- something that did not naturally accumulate as a result of work or operation on the land.
What is the latin principle discussed by Lord Cranworth LJ
- 'sic uni duo ut non laedat alienum'
- you cannot use your land in a way that will prevent another from using his.
What are the facts of Smith v Kenrick, what did it establish, was it followed?
Water was found to have naturally flown from an upper mine to a lower mine when the owner of
the upper mine removed some coal. It was deemed that the owner of the upper mine had every
right to move the coal in his mine.
Established that a person will not be liable for damages caused in using their land in such a way
that they had a right to use. Others knowing of the action must protect themselves.
Distinguished but followed in principle.
What are the facts of Baird v Williamson, what did it establish, was it followed?
An owner of an upper coal mine pumped water into his mine. This caused an accumulation of
water in the lower mine that was more than would normally be there.
Established the principle that a defendant will be liable for damage caused as result of non-
natural use of the land, whether it be introducing something that was not originally there or as a
result of any work.
New 2025/2026 Update | With Complete Solutions
Rylands v Fletcher
1868
House of Lords
Lord Cairns LC, Lord Cranworth LJ
What is the principle of law in Rylands v Fletcher?
Any man who brings on to his land an collects and keeps it there for a non-natural use,
something which may cause mischief if it escapes, and it escapes, he is liable for all the damage
which is the natural consequence of the escape, even if he has taken due care to prevent it.
What are the parts of Blackburn's Test?
1. The defendant brought onto his land and collected and kept there something which could
cause mischief if it escaped.
2. Did the things escape and cause mischief?
3. Was the use of the land (in bringing the thing onto it) a non-natural use?
4. Was damage of the relevant kind foreseeable?
5. Are there any defences available?
What were the two defences established by Blackburn J
,- Vis Major
- The escape owing to the fault of the plaintiff.
What was the historical context behind Rylands v Fletcher?
- There had been 3 notable water escape disasters in the 15 years before Rylands.
What were the material facts in Rylands v Fletcher?
- Rylands had employed seemingly skilled people to build a reservoir on land that had previously
been mined.
- When the reservoir was filled, it broke.
- Water passed down the horizontal mine shafts and down down into the coal mine of the
plaintiff, causing damage.
- The defendants themselves were not negligent.
What is the issue in Rylands v Fletcher
If a person brings water onto his or her land, which without negligence on their part, escapes and
causes damage to another person's land, will they be liable to damages?
What elements of Blackburn's Judgement indicated foreseeability?
'Likely to cause mischief'
'That he knew'.
What was the original notion of non-natural intended to mean?
- something that was not on the land 'in its natural condition'.
- something that is not naturally occurring there.
, - introducing something in a quantity that is not normal.
- something that did not naturally accumulate as a result of work or operation on the land.
What is the latin principle discussed by Lord Cranworth LJ
- 'sic uni duo ut non laedat alienum'
- you cannot use your land in a way that will prevent another from using his.
What are the facts of Smith v Kenrick, what did it establish, was it followed?
Water was found to have naturally flown from an upper mine to a lower mine when the owner of
the upper mine removed some coal. It was deemed that the owner of the upper mine had every
right to move the coal in his mine.
Established that a person will not be liable for damages caused in using their land in such a way
that they had a right to use. Others knowing of the action must protect themselves.
Distinguished but followed in principle.
What are the facts of Baird v Williamson, what did it establish, was it followed?
An owner of an upper coal mine pumped water into his mine. This caused an accumulation of
water in the lower mine that was more than would normally be there.
Established the principle that a defendant will be liable for damage caused as result of non-
natural use of the land, whether it be introducing something that was not originally there or as a
result of any work.
