Strict liabilityNon natural useHouse of Lords

Rylands v Fletcher

(1868) LR 3 House of Lords 33018681 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The defendant built a reservoir on his land. Water from the reservoir escaped through old mine shafts and flooded the plaintiff's adjoining mine. The defendant was not negligent; the reservoir was properly constructed; the old shafts were unknown.
Issue
Whether a person is liable for damage caused by escape of a dangerous substance from their land even without negligence.
Held
A person who for his own purposes brings on his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril.
Principle
A person who brings on his land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for all damage caused by its escape, regardless of fault.
Cite this

Facts

  • The defendant built a reservoir on his land
  • Water from the reservoir escaped through old mine shafts and flooded the plaintiff's adjoining mine
  • The defendant was not negligent; the reservoir was properly constructed; the old shafts were unknown

Issue

  1. Whether a person is liable for damage caused by escape of a dangerous substance from their land even without negligence.

Held

  • A person who for his own purposes brings on his land anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril
  • If it escapes, he is prima facie answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape
  • No negligence needs to be proved
  • The use must be "non-natural use" of land

Ratio decidendi

Strict liability for non-natural use of land: (1) Non-natural use, (2) thing likely to do mischief, (3) escape from defendant's land = liability WITHOUT proof of fault. Defences available: Act of God, plaintiff's fault, act of stranger, statutory authority, consent.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Part A: Foundation of strict liability doctrine in tort.
  • Part B: In India, superseded by MC Mehta v Union of India (1987) which created absolute liability (no defences) for enterprises engaged in inherently dangerous activities. Rylands remains relevant as the foundational framework for no-fault industrial liability worldwide.
  • Key distinction: Strict liability (Rylands, defences available) vs Absolute liability (MC Mehta, NO defences).

Cite this

Citation

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 House of Lords 330

Reported: (1868) LR 3 House of Lords 330. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.