Rule under Rylands V Fletcher
'We think that the rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his
lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, [where this is
a non-natural use of the land]* must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima
facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can
excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps
that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this
sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.'
It is a form of strict liability, in that the defendant may be liable in the absence of any
negligent conduct on their part. Imposing liability without proof of negligence is
controversial and therefore a restrictive approach has been taken with regards to liability
under Rylands v Fletcher. There have been attempts to do away with liability under Rylands
v Fletcher but the House of Lords have retained it.
Rylands V Fletcher (The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land.
The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to
the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing
extensive damage. The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non-
natural use of land).
Relationship with private nuisance:
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
- Lord Goff: ‘…it would lead to a more coherent body of common law principles if the
[rule in Rylands v Fletcher] were to be regarded as essentially an extension of the law of
nuisance to isolated escapes from land.’
Transco plc v Stockport
- Lord Bingham of Cornhill: ‘The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a sub-species of nuisance…’
- Huge criticism of the rule in Rylands V Fletcher, however note that the HL did not abolish
the rule....more of a role for parliament?
- Lord Hoffman: ‘…I do not think that it would be consistent with the judicial
function of your Lordships’ House to abolish the rule. It has been part of English law for
nearly 150 years and despite a searching examination by Lord Goff of Chievely in the
Cambridge Water case …there was no suggestion in his speech that it could or should be
abolished. I think that would be too radical a step to take.’
-
Elements:
1. There must be a dangerous thing which would be likely to cause damage or ‘mischief’ if it
escaped
2. This must be accumulated by the defendant
3. There must be an ‘escape’
4. This accumulation must be a non-natural user of the land
'We think that the rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his
lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, [where this is
a non-natural use of the land]* must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima
facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can
excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps
that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this
sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.'
It is a form of strict liability, in that the defendant may be liable in the absence of any
negligent conduct on their part. Imposing liability without proof of negligence is
controversial and therefore a restrictive approach has been taken with regards to liability
under Rylands v Fletcher. There have been attempts to do away with liability under Rylands
v Fletcher but the House of Lords have retained it.
Rylands V Fletcher (The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land.
The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir filtered through to
the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing
extensive damage. The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non-
natural use of land).
Relationship with private nuisance:
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather
- Lord Goff: ‘…it would lead to a more coherent body of common law principles if the
[rule in Rylands v Fletcher] were to be regarded as essentially an extension of the law of
nuisance to isolated escapes from land.’
Transco plc v Stockport
- Lord Bingham of Cornhill: ‘The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a sub-species of nuisance…’
- Huge criticism of the rule in Rylands V Fletcher, however note that the HL did not abolish
the rule....more of a role for parliament?
- Lord Hoffman: ‘…I do not think that it would be consistent with the judicial
function of your Lordships’ House to abolish the rule. It has been part of English law for
nearly 150 years and despite a searching examination by Lord Goff of Chievely in the
Cambridge Water case …there was no suggestion in his speech that it could or should be
abolished. I think that would be too radical a step to take.’
-
Elements:
1. There must be a dangerous thing which would be likely to cause damage or ‘mischief’ if it
escaped
2. This must be accumulated by the defendant
3. There must be an ‘escape’
4. This accumulation must be a non-natural user of the land
