Rylands v Fletcher [1865] EngR 436

Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir which burst and flooded Fletcher's neighbouring mine. Despite Rylands having no knowledge of old mine shafts that caused the flooding, he was held strictly liable. This landmark case established that one who brings something dangerous onto their land is liable if it escapes and causes damage.

Facts

In 1860, Rylands paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land to supply Ainsworth Mill with water. During construction, the contractors discovered old coal shafts and passages filled with soil and debris which connected to Thomas Fletcher’s adjoining mine, the Red House Colliery. Rather than blocking these shafts, the contractors left them. On 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, the reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher’s mine, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher brought a claim against Rylands and the landowner, Jehu Horrocks.

Issues

The central legal issues were whether the defendants were liable for the actions of the contractors, and whether the defendants were liable for the damage regardless of their lack of negligence. Traditional torts of trespass and nuisance were considered inapplicable as the flooding was not direct and immediate, and was a one-off event.

Judgment

Exchequer of Pleas

The court was split. The majority held that since a negligence claim could not be brought, there was no valid case. Baron Bramwell dissented, arguing that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water.

Court of Exchequer Chamber

The prior decision was overturned in Fletcher’s favour. Mr Justice Blackburn delivered the leading judgment, stating:

We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

House of Lords

The House of Lords dismissed Rylands’ appeal, with Lord Cairns confirming Blackburn’s decision and adding a requirement of ‘non-natural use’. Lord Cairns stated that if the defendants used their land for a ‘non-natural use’ by introducing something which was not naturally there, and if in consequence the water escaped and caused injury, the defendants would be liable.

Implications

This case established a new area of English tort law by imposing strict liability on those who accumulate dangerous things on their land without requiring proof of negligence or wrongful intent. The doctrine brought the law relating to private reservoirs into line with statutory provisions for public reservoirs. The rule has been both distinguished from and regarded as a species of private nuisance. Subsequent cases including Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council have confirmed that Rylands is now considered a sub-tort of nuisance rather than an independent tort in England and Wales.

Verdict: The House of Lords dismissed Rylands' appeal and confirmed judgment for Fletcher, establishing that a person who brings something dangerous onto their land for non-natural use is strictly liable for damage caused if it escapes.

Source: Rylands v Fletcher [1865] EngR 436