Lexplug logoLexplug

Rylands v Fletcher

House of Lords
3 HL 330 (1868)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person who, for their own purposes, brings something onto their land that is likely to cause mischief if it escapes, is strictly liable for any damage that is the natural consequence of its escape, provided the land is being used for a non-natural purpose.


Facts:

  • Thomas Fletcher was the occupier of a mine.
  • John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks owned a mill nearby and constructed a large reservoir on their land to supply it with water.
  • Beneath the land where the reservoir was built were several old, disused vertical mine shafts.
  • Rylands and Horrocks hired an independent engineer and contractors to build the reservoir.
  • The contractors discovered the disused shafts, which were filled with soil and debris, but failed to properly seal or reinforce them.
  • When the reservoir was filled, the water broke through the weakened shafts.
  • The water flowed through the old mine workings, which were connected to Fletcher's mine, and flooded it, causing substantial damage.

Procedural Posture:

  • Thomas Fletcher sued John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks for damages in the Court of Exchequer.
  • The Court of Exchequer found for the defendants, Rylands and Horrocks, holding that there was no cause of action.
  • Fletcher, the plaintiff, appealed to the Court of Exchequer Chamber.
  • The Court of Exchequer Chamber unanimously reversed the lower court's decision, finding in favor of Fletcher.
  • Rylands and Horrocks, the defendants, then appealed to the House of Lords.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a landowner who lawfully brings something onto their land that is harmless while it remains there, but is dangerous if it escapes, strictly liable for the damage caused by its escape, regardless of any lack of negligence on their part?


Opinions:

Majority - Lord Cairns

Yes. A landowner who brings a dangerous substance onto their land for a non-natural use is strictly liable for damages caused by its escape. The Court distinguished between a 'natural' and 'non-natural' use of land. A natural use, such as the natural accumulation and percolation of water, would not give rise to liability. However, constructing a large reservoir is a 'non-natural' use. By choosing to introduce something to the land that was not naturally there and was known to be mischievous if it escaped, Rylands did so at their own peril and are liable for the consequences. The Court explicitly adopted the rule articulated by Justice Blackburn in the court below: '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 in at his peril.'


Concurring - Lord Cranworth

Yes. A person who accumulates something on their land that may cause damage upon escape does so at their peril and is responsible for any resulting damage, regardless of how careful they may have been. The central question is not whether the defendant acted with due care, but whether their acts caused the damage. When one person's management of their own affairs causes damage to another, it is just that the person causing the damage should be the one to suffer the loss. The defendants brought a large, accumulated mass of water onto their land for their own purposes, and they are responsible for the damage that resulted from its escape.



Analysis:

This case established the doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, which became known as the Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. It created a distinct tort that does not require proof of negligence, holding defendants liable for harm caused by the escape of dangerous things they bring onto their land. The distinction between 'natural' and 'non-natural' use of land, introduced by Lord Cairns, became a critical element for applying the rule, limiting its scope to activities that are unusual or extraordinary. This principle has profoundly influenced tort law in common law jurisdictions, forming the foundation for liability related to activities like blasting, fumigation, and storing hazardous substances.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Rylands v Fletcher (1868) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Rylands v Fletcher