Rylands V Fletcher:

• Rylands v Fletcher (1868)


  • Case study
  • Defendant was mill owner Rylands
  • Hired contractors to create reservoir on his land
  • Contractors negligently failed to block off disused mineshafts
  • Mineshafts connected to other mineworks on adjoining land belonging to claimant Fletcher
  • When reservoir filled, water flooded neighbouring mines
  • Defendant Rylands was liable
• Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties leather Plc (1994)

  • Rylands v Fletcher has been considered as a sub-tort of nuisance and not a tort in its own right
  • Statutory provisions are now in place that are more suitable for dealing with these types of situations, like Environmental Protection Act 1990
• Rylands v Fletcher claim

  • Claimant must show:
  • A thing was brought and accumulated on the defendant's land
  • The thing will be likely to cause mischief if it escapes
  • The thing itself need not be inherently dangerous
  • The thing escaping causes damage
  • There must be an escape but this can be either from land over which the defendant has control, or from circumstances over which D has control
  • The harm must be foreseeable
• Thing brought and accumulated on defendant's land

  • If the 'thing' is naturally present on the land, there can be no liability
  • Giles v Walker (1890) - no liability for weeds spreading onto a neighbouring piece of land
  • Thing that naturally accumulates - cannot be liable
  • Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997) - rainwater that accumulated naturally and escaped, causing flooding on neighbouring airfield, not enough
• Thing likely to cause mischief if it escapes

  • This is a test of foreseeability
  • It is not the 'escape' that must be foreseeable, but only that the 'damage' was foreseeable, if the 'thing' does escape
  • Examples of 'things' which the courts have decided can do mischief: Gas and electricity, Poisonous fumes, A flag pole, Tree branches, An occupied chair from a fair-ground ride (Hale v Jennings Bros 1938)
• Thing itself need not be inherently dangerous

  • Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John [1936] - A flag pole belonging to the defendant fell and hit the claimant. This was held to amount to an escape for the purposes of Rylands v Fletcher. The defendant was made to pay damages as compensation.
• Thing escaping causes damage


  • The 'thing' must escape from one property onto another (however, not always strictly applied - Jennings for example, both stalls at the fair operated on the same piece of land)
  • Read v Lyons (1947) - An inspector was checking the interior of munitions factory and was injured, together with a number of other workers, when a shell exploded. The House of Lords (Now Supreme Court) decided that Rylands v Fletcher did not apply as 'there was no escape at all of the relevant kind'
  • Viscount Simon in Rylands v Fletcher stated "an escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control"
• Escape from land or circumstances where defendant has lost control

  • British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd (1969) - an escape where the defendant has lost control. The defendants stored strips of metal foil used in the manufacture of electrical components. Some strips blew off the defendant's land onto a electric sub-station, causing power failure. The defendant had lost control of his land, but it was held that the use of land by the defendant's was a natural use of land, because of the benefit from the manufacture received by the local population.
• Use of land must be 'non-natural'

  • Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2004) - Ruled that non-natural refers to some extraordinary or unusual use of land
  • Storage of things associated with domestic use will not normally be considered as non-natural, even though they may be potentially hazardous
• Natural use of land

  • A fire in a grate which spread to neighbours premises
  • Defective electric wiring that caused a fire which spread
  • A domestic water supply
• Defences to Rylands v Fletcher

  • Act of God - may succeed where there are extreme weather conditions that ‘no human foresight can provide against’. (no one would have foreseen such weather).
  • Act of a stranger - if a stranger over whom the defendant has no control has been the cause of the escape causing the damage, then the defendant may not be liable.
  • Volenti (Consent)
  • Wrongful Act of Third Party
  • Statutory Authority
  • Contributory Negligence