Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1946] UKHL 2

An inspector in a munitions factory was injured by an explosion. She could not prove negligence. The House of Lords held the factory was not liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as there was no 'escape' of the dangerous thing from the premises.

Facts

The appellant, Miss Eleanor Read, was an inspector for the Ministry of Supply during the Second World War. She was directed to work at the respondent’s munitions factory, which was operated on behalf of the Ministry. On 31st August 1942, an explosion occurred during the process of manufacturing a high-explosive shell, killing one person and injuring several others, including the appellant. The cause of the explosion was unknown. Miss Read brought a claim for damages for personal injuries against the factory operators, J. Lyons & Co. Ltd. There was no allegation of negligence against the company; the claim was founded on the principle of strict liability, arguing that the company was engaged in an ultra-hazardous activity and should be liable for any harm caused, irrespective of fault. The case proceeded on the basis that the respondents were carrying on the manufacture of explosives.

Issues

The central legal issues before the House of Lords were:

1. Whether the rule of strict liability established in Rylands v Fletcher applied where the injury occurred on the defendant’s premises, meaning there was no ‘escape’ of the dangerous substance from the defendant’s land to an area outside their control.
2. Whether the manufacture of explosives in a factory in wartime, on behalf of the government, constituted a ‘non-natural’ use of the land for the purposes of the Rylands v Fletcher rule.
3. Whether a claim for personal injuries, as opposed to damage to property, could be sustained under the Rylands v Fletcher rule.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents were not liable. The judgment confirmed that the ‘escape’ of the dangerous thing is an essential and prerequisite element for a successful claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Viscount Simon

Viscount Simon, delivering the leading judgment, undertook a detailed analysis of Rylands v Fletcher. He concluded that the absence of an ‘escape’ from the respondent’s premises was fatal to the appellant’s claim. He defined ‘escape’ precisely:

…escape from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control.

Since Miss Read was on the factory premises when the explosion occurred, this essential condition was not met. He stated that to remove the requirement of escape would be to create a much wider, and unsupported, principle of strict liability for dangerous activities. He also expressed significant doubt as to whether the rule applied to personal injuries at all, noting it was primarily concerned with the duties of landowners in relation to their property. Furthermore, he considered the use of the land for munitions manufacturing in wartime to be a natural, not ‘non-natural’, use, given the national interest.

Lord Macmillan

Lord Macmillan concurred, emphasising that strict liability is an exception in English law and that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher should not be extended. He argued that the appellant’s presence in the factory was a result of her duty as an inspector, making her more akin to an employee or invitee (a ‘licensee with an interest’) than a member of the public affected by an escape. He clarified the limited nature of the rule:

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher is a principle of limited application. It is a speciality of the English common law… It is a rule which derives from a conception of the mutual duties of adjoining or neighbouring landowners, and its congeners are nuisance and trespass.

He also firmly stated his view that the rule did not extend to cover personal injuries, which are traditionally addressed by the law of negligence.

Lord Porter

Lord Porter agreed that the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds that there was no escape. He dedicated a significant part of his speech to the concept of ‘non-natural user’, concluding that what might be non-natural in one era could be natural in another. In the context of a nation at war, he found it impossible to categorise the manufacture of munitions for the public good as a ‘non-natural’ use of land.

Implications

The decision in Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd is a landmark case that significantly clarified and restated the limits of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. It conclusively established that ‘escape’ from the defendant’s land is an essential element of the tort, thereby preventing its expansion into a general principle of strict liability for any ultra-hazardous activity. By confining the rule’s application, the judgment reinforced the primacy of negligence as the principal tort governing liability for personal injury. While not definitively deciding the point, the strong opinions expressed by the Law Lords cast enduring doubt on whether claims for personal injury can be brought under the rule, suggesting its proper scope is damage to land or property resulting from an escape.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The defendant was held not to be liable for the claimant’s injuries.

Source: Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1946] UKHL 2