Strict liabilityRylands v fletcherHouse of Lords (UK)

Read v J. Lyons and Co. Ltd.

[1947] Appeal Cases 15619471 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiff was employed as an inspector at a munitions factory. A shell being manufactured on the premises exploded, injuring the plaintiff while she was present within the factory.
Issue
Whether the Rylands v Fletcher rule applies where the plaintiff is injured by a dangerous activity while present within the defendant's own premises, without any escape to an outside location.
Held
Rylands v Fletcher requires an actual escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant's premises to a place outside their occupation or control.
Principle
The Rylands v Fletcher rule requires an actual escape of the dangerous thing to a place outside the defendant's occupation or control; injury occurring within the defendant's premises does not satisfy this essential requirement.

Facts

  • The plaintiff was employed as an inspector at a munitions factory
  • A shell being manufactured on the premises exploded, injuring the plaintiff while she was present within the factory
  • No dangerous substance escaped to a place outside the defendant's occupation or control
  • The plaintiff sought to rely on Rylands v Fletcher strict liability

Issue

  1. Whether the Rylands v Fletcher rule applies where the plaintiff is injured by a dangerous activity while present within the defendant's own premises, without any escape to an outside location.

Held

  • Rylands v Fletcher requires an actual escape of the dangerous thing from the defendant's premises to a place outside their occupation or control
  • Since the plaintiff was injured within the factory itself, with no such escape, this essential element was missing
  • The rule did not apply; the plaintiff's claim would need to rest on ordinary negligence principles instead

Ratio decidendi

Strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher is confined to situations involving an actual escape of the dangerous thing to a place outside the defendant's occupation or control. Harm occurring to a person present within the defendant's own premises does not satisfy this requirement, however hazardous the underlying activity.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Part A: Defines the essential "escape" element of Rylands v Fletcher.
  • Part B: Pair directly with Rylands v Fletcher to define the escape requirement's limits.
  • Key line: "Rylands v Fletcher requires an actual escape to a place outside the defendant's occupation, which was absent where the plaintiff was injured within the defendant's own premises."

Cite this

Citation

Read v. J. Lyons and Co. Ltd. [1947] Appeal Cases 156

Reported: [1947] AC 156. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.