Rylands v Fletcher

• four main elements

  • collecting and keeping on land
  • non-natural use of land
  • likely to do mischief if it escapes
  • does escape and causes damage
• collecting and keeping on land

  • d needs to be either the accumulator or occupier of the land accumulated on
  • no liability if the thing naturally accumulated on the land (Giles v walker)
• use of land must be non-natural


  (transco) - 'non-natural' use means 'uncommon'

  • a truly domestic use is a natural use
  • (read v Lyons) - 'what may be regarded as dangerous or non-natural will vary according to the circumstances'
• the thing collected must be likely to do mischief if it escapes

  (hale v jennings)

  • thing need not be dangerous in itself but it must be likely to cause harm if it escapes
• does escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage

  (Cambridge water) - can only claim for property damage

  • C is not allowed to claim for injury or pure economic loss - (Weller v disease)
  • the potential for harm needs to be foreseeable (Cambridge water)
• the position regarding escape of fire

  (stannard v gore) - D will not be liable when the fire escapes
• defences to claims 


  • consent
  • common benefit
  • act of god
  • act of a stranger
  • contributory negligence
• volenti non fit injuria (consent)

  • if C expressively consented to the collecting and keeping of the dangerous thing which escaped, he cannot then hold D liable for the consequences
  • (Peters v prince of Wales theatre)
• common benefit

  • if both parties stand to gain from the thing brought onto the land
  • (dunne v north west gas board)
• act of god

  • this relates to unforeseeable natural circumstances that cause the escape
  • (nicholls v marsland)
• act of a stranger 


  • if an unknown third party takes action that leads to the escape, then D not liable
  • (Perry v Kendrick's transport)
• contributory negligence 


  • if C was partly to blame for the damage to his property
  • (Cape Town tramways)