CS - Rylands v Fletcher

• Rylands v Fletcher (1868)


  D constructed a reservoir on their land. Unknown to D, water from the reservoir filtered through to a disused mine shaft and then spread to a working mine owned by C causing extensive damage. Ds were strictly liable for the damage caused by a non-natural use of land.

  'If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been.'

  ― Lord Cairns
• Transco v Stockport (2004)


  Claimant - D’s water pipe supplying a block of flats burst and caused a

  landslip which damaged C’s gas main. Although the claim ultimately failed, C had an interest in land as the owner of the affected gas main.
• Rylands v Fletcher (1868) - Defendant 


  D had made a reservoir on his land as a water supply for his mill. He was liable when the water escaped down disused mineshafts and caused

  flooding to a mine.
• Giles v Walker (1890)


  There must be a bringing onto the land of a substance by the Defendant. There can be no liability if the thing in question is already naturally present on the land or if it accumulates naturally, e.g. rainwater.

  D ploughed up his field which then became self-sown with thistles that spread to neighbouring land. The claim failed as the accumulation of thistles was natural.
• Hale v Jennings (1938)


  Dangerous thing - A chair from a “chair-o-plane” fairground ride that flew off its moorings mid-ride was dangerous.
• Transco v Stockport (2004)


  Dangerous Thing - Water flowing in a pipe used for a domestic water supply did not pose an exceptional risk so was not dangerous. C’s claim failed.
• Stannard v Gore (2012) - Damage by Fire


  D ran a tyre fitting business and stored tyres that caught fire. The fire spread to C’s adjoining premises. The Court of Appeal decided that in the light of Transco, Ds were not liable as the tyres were not

  exceptionally dangerous; the activity carried on by Ds was an ordinary activity on a light industrial estate; and the tyres had not “escaped”.
• LMS International v Styrene (2005) - Damage by Fire


  A fire started in D’s factory that contained a large quantity of flammable material. It spread to C’s adjoining property. D was liable, as it had

  accumulated things that were a known fire risk. The storage was a non-natural use of the land.
• Transco v Stockport (2004) - Non-natural Use


  Supplying water to flats was an ordinary (natural) use of the land so the claim failed. The Court said that the term “non-natural” was not helpful and it was preferable to ask whether D was an ordinary user.
• Rickards v Lothian (1913)


  Non-natural use was defined as “some special use bringing with it increased danger to others and [which] must not merely be the ordinary use of the land.”
• Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)


  Non-natural Use - Spillages of solvents from D’s factory seeped into the soil and contaminated the water from a spring owned by C. The Court held that bulk storage of chemicals was a non-natural use. (Although C’s claim ultimately failed because the damage which occurred was not reasonably foreseeable.)
• Read v Lyons (1947)


  Escape - There must be an escape from land that D controls to land that he or she does not control. C was injured by an exploding shell while inspecting a munitions factory. The claim failed because she was still on D’s premises so there was no “escape”.
• Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)


  Damage - The escaping thing must cause reasonably foreseeable damage to adjoining land. C’s claim failed because it was not reasonably foreseeable that C’s activities would contaminate D’s spring

  as it was too remote from the site of the spillage.
• Perry v Kendricks (1956)


  Defence - Act of a Stranger - D was not liable for the consequences of an explosion because it was caused by a 3rd party placing a lit match in the petrol tank of D’s coaches.
• Nichols v Marsland (1876)


  Defence - Act of God - D was not liable when water escaped from an artificial lake after a prolonged and violent rainstorm.
• Green v Chelsea Waterworks (1894)


  Defence - Statutory Authority - D was not liable as D had a statutory duty to maintain a supply of water.
• Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre (1943)


  Defence - Volenti non fit injuria - Ds were not liable for a flood caused to C’s adjacent property when pipes in sprinklers burst, as the sprinkler system was installed for the benefit of both and C consented to the

  sprinkler system when he took on the lease.