Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

Rylands vs Fletcher

Reference : [1868] UKHL 1

Jurisdiction : England

Appellant : Rylands (Defendant in the Court of first instance)
Respondent : Fletcher (Plaintiff in the Court of first instance)

Facts :

Fletcher occupied an underground mine, while Rylands owned a nearby mill in the same neighbourhood. Rylands initiated the construction of a water reservoir for his mill on a close of land adjoining Fletcher’s land and mine. A third-party contractor was hired to construct this water reservoir. During construction, the engineer discovered five vertical shafts underneath the land, which had all been filled up with soil and rubbish. The engineer and the contractor did not take any steps to seal off the shafts and continued the construction work. Rylands was not informed about the existence of the shafts. After the construction of the reservoir, when it was filled with water, the weight of the water caused the unsealed shafts underneath to break. This caused the water of the reservoir to flood into Fletcher’s mine through the broken shafts causing a considerable amount of damage. An action was brought against Rylands for the damage caused by the escaping water.

Issues : Can the defendant be held liable for the damage caused by the accidental escape of an otherwise harmless object/material?

Decisions :

Court of Exchequer :
The Court of Exchequer was convinced that the plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action and decided that the defendant was not liable for the damage.

Court of Exchequer Chamber :
The decision of the Court of Exchequer was reversed as the Judges unanimously came to the conclusion that Fletcher had indeed established a cause of action and that Rylands was liable for the damage. Justice Blackburn stated, ❝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 in at his peril; and if he does not do so, is primâ facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.❞

House of Lords :
The House of Lords agreed with the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber. The water on the defendant/appellant’s land did not come into existence naturally. It was brought in from outside for his own benefit. Water stored in a reservoir is harmless. But when the escape of the same water floods a mine, it can cause a great amount of damage. The House of Lords held that in such a scenario, the defendant would be held strictly liable, as Lord Cranworth stated, ❝If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.❞ The House of Lords affirmed the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber and held Rylands liable.

Development of the Tort of Strict Liability :

The tort of strict liability holds the defendant liable regardless of any precautionary measures which he might have undertaken. A defendant may be held strictly liable in a tort suit in the presence of the following –

  1. The object was brought in from outside and kept on the land by the defendant.
  2. The purpose of keeping the object does not fall under the natural use of the land.
  3. The object is likely to cause mischief if it escapes.
  4. The object escapes and subsequently causes harm.

It must be noted that the tort of strict liability has come a long way, and the principles of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) is no longer strictly followed in many jurisdictions.


Author :
1. S.M. Monzur Morshed

Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you

Share