Rylands v. Fletcher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| English Tort law |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Negligence |
| Duty of care |
| Standard of care |
| Bolam Test |
| Breach of duty |
| Causation |
| Breaking the chain |
| Acts of the claimant |
| Remoteness |
| Professional negligence |
| Loss of chance |
| Loss of right |
| Res ipsa loquitur |
| Eggshell skull |
| Defences to negligence |
| Trespass to property |
| Defamation |
| Strict liability |
| Vicarious liability |
| Rylands v. Fletcher |
| Nuisance |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Property law |
| Wills and trusts |
| Criminal law · Evidence |
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a landmark English legal case in which the Court of the Exchequer Chamber first applied the doctrine of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities (on appeal by Rylands, the House of Lords confirmed the previous judgment, but restricted the rule to a non-natural user of the land). It established a rule related to, though arguably distinct from, the tort of nuisance. The tort is increasingly being recognised as distinct from nuisance, although undoubtedly closely related.
The case concerned escape of water onto neighbouring land. Later cases decided on the basis of the rule included Cambridge Water v. Eastern Counties Leather, which concerned the leakage of solvent into the claimant's water reservoir below.
The leading authority on the rule is now Stockport M.B.C. v Transco in which the House of Lords rejected the suggestion that the rule should be abrogated but sought severely to limit its application. There is no reported case over the last 60 years in which a case has been won solely on the basis of this tort.
[edit] Background
Rylands was constructing a mill on his land. He employed independent contractors to do the work. While excavating the construction site, the contractors came across some disused mine shafts. They (with admitted negligence) failed to determine where these shafts led. In fact, the shafts led to Fletcher's land. Water from the mill's reservoir, without negligence, flooded into the shafts and into Fletcher's land. Fletcher sued Rylands.
The issue before the Court was whether the doctrine of strict liability could be applied to inherently dangerous activities. Fletcher argued that a strict doctrine of negligence should be applied where Rylands should be liable for the damages caused by his inherently dangerous activity (that is, collecting a dangerous amount of water on his land which then "escaped" into the mine). Rylands argued that he was acting reasonably and lawfully on his own land and thus should not be held responsible for a simple accident.
Note: The reason the case is called Rylands v. Fletcher when the plaintiff was Fletcher is that the rule was confirmed on appeal by Rylands at the House of Lords (a higher court), hence the original case name was reversed.
[edit] Ruling
The Court found in favour of Fletcher and ordered Rylands to pay for all the property damage to the mine. The Court agreed that Rylands had a duty in maintaining the reservoir to all harm caused by it.
- We think that the true 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, 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…
The Court further elaborated by saying that the defendant can only excuse himself by showing that the damage was caused by an Act of God or force majeure.
On Appeal to the Lords, they agreed with the earlier ruling, but restricted the liability to there being a non-natural use of the land (i.e. the water in Rylands reservoir was not there by nature - it was a non-natural use of the land).
