Rylands v Fletcher

• Rylands v Fletcher


  A strict liability tort where the claimant does not have to prove the defendant was at fault
• Rylands v Fletcher case

  1. D was a mill owner

  2. Hired contractors to create a reservoir

  3. Contractors failed to block off discussed mineshafts connected to neighbouring land

  4. Reservoir was filled and flooded neighbour's land
• 4 elements for a successful Rylands v Fletcher claim


  • A 'thing' is brought onto land and there is an accumulation (Storage) of it
  • The 'thing' is likely to cause mischief (or damage) if it escapes
  • The storage amounts to a non-natural use of the land
  • The 'thing' does escape and causes foreseeable damage
• Since the case of Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather Plc (1994) the tort of Rylands v Fletcher is now considered a sub-tort of nuisance rather than a separate action
• Requirements to bring a Rylands v Fletcher claim

  • Claimant must have an interest in the land (owner, tenant or proprietary interest)
  • Defendant must be the owner or occupier of the land and satisfy all 4 elements of the tort
  • Defendant must have control over the land on which the material is stored
• The bringing onto the land

  • If the thing in question is already naturally present on the land then there can be no liability
  • There cannot be liability for something that naturally accumulates (is stored) on the land
• The thing or substance is likely to do mischief if it escapes


  This is a test of foreseeability - it is not the escape that must be foreseeable, but the damage
• Things the courts have decided can do mischief

  • Gas or electricity
  • Poisonous fumes
  • A flag pole
  • Tree branches
  • An occupied chair from a chair o plane ride
• The HoL commented obiter in Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003) that as the tort is a sub-tort of nuisance, it is not possible to claim for personal injury
• Damage caused by fire

  • Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore (2012)
  • Damage caused by a moving fire from an adjoining property might fall within Rylands v Fletcher Claim, but this is likely to be very rare
• Non-natural use of land

  The use of land must be something which brings with it an increased risk of danger to be considered non-natural
• Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) ruled that non-natural = some extraordinary or unusual use of land
• Uses of land that have been classified as natural


  • A fire in a grate which spreads to C's Premises
  • Defective electric wiring that caused a fire to spread
  • A domestic water supply
• The thing stored must escape and cause foreseeable damage

  The stored item must escape from one property onto another property
• Viscount Simon explained that an escape for Rylands v Fletcher means: 'an escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control'
• However, this rule isn't always strictly applied, in Hale v Jennings Bros 1938, both stalls operated on the same piece of land and neither stall holder owned the land. Yet liability was imposed
• Defences to Rylands v Fletcher

  • Act of god
  • Act of a stranger
  • Act of a third party
  • Volenti
  • Contributory negligence
  • Statutory authority
• Damages


  The claimant must show damage to, or destruction of, their property to succeed in a claim. The amount will be determined by the cost of repair or replacement of the property.