RYLANDS VS FLETCHER MODEL
ANSWER - WITH NUISANCE
Introduction
The case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) established a strict liability principle in tort
law, meaning a person can be held responsible for harm even if they were not negligent. This
rule applies when someone stores or uses something dangerous on their land, and it
escapes, causing damage to a neighbor’s property. The case set a precedent for liability in
cases of unnatural land use , particularly in situations involving hazardous substances.
Although this rule is still used today, especially in environmental and property damage
cases , it has limitations . Courts have refined the principle over time, determining
who can claim compensation, what defenses are available, and what types of harm are
covered . This essay explores the key elements of the Rylands v Fletcher rule,
including its application, defenses, and scope in modern law .
The Rylands v Fletcher Case and Its Principles
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher was established after the defendant, Rylands, built a
reservoir on his property. However, he did not realize that the land contained old,
unsealed mine shafts . When water was released into the reservoir, it leaked through the
shafts and flooded the claimant, Fletcher’s, land , damaging his mines. Fletcher sued for
compensation , and the case reached the House of Lords , where he won.
The court ruled that anyone who brings something dangerous onto their land must ensure it
does not escape and cause harm . Blackburn J explained that if a person keeps
something "likely to cause mischief" and it escapes, they are responsible for any damage,
regardless of whether they were negligent.
This strict liability principle ensures that those who use land in a way that creates risks
must also bear the consequences if things go wrong. It applies to unnatural use of land
, meaning it does not cover normal everyday activities .
Who Can Make a Claim?
A key question in applying the Rylands v Fletcher rule is who is allowed to sue? In the
original case, Fletcher owned the land that was flooded , so he was directly affected.
Courts have since ruled that only people with a legal interest in the affected land such as
owners and tenants can sue under this rule. This was confirmed in Cambridge Water Co
v Eastern Counties Leather (1994) , where the court ruled that a claimant must have a
direct property interest to bring a case. This means visitors, employees, or bystanders
cannot claim damages under the Rylands rule, even if they are personally affected.
Defenses to a Claim Under Rylands v Fletcher
Several defenses exist that can protect a defendant from liability under this rule. These
include:
1. Act of God (Natural Events Beyond Control) – If the escape of the dangerous
substance was caused by a completely unforeseeable natural event , the defendant may
not be held liable. In Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway (1917) , heavy rainfall
caused unexpected flooding, and the defendant was not found responsible because the event
was beyond human control.
2. Consent of the Claimant – If the claimant agreed to the risk , they cannot later sue
for damages. In Dunne v North Western Gas Board (1964) , a gas leak caused an
explosion, but since gas storage was a necessary and accepted risk, the claim failed.
3. Fault of the Claimant – If the claimant’s own actions contributed to the escape, they
may not be able to sue. In Eastern and South African Telegraph Co v Cape Town
Tramways Co (1902) , a company laid cables in an unsafe manner , which contributed
to damage caused by flooding. The court ruled that they were partly at fault, reducing liability
for the defendant.
4. Intervention of a Third Party – If a third party causes the escape , the defendant
may not be responsible. In Rickards v Lothian (1913) , an unknown person
deliberately blocked a sink , causing a flood. Since the defendant had no way to prevent
this, they were not held liable.
These defenses protect defendants from unfair liability and help courts determine
whether responsibility should be shared or avoided altogether .
Does Rylands v Fletcher Apply to Personal Injuries?
One of the most debated issues in this area of law is whether the Rylands principle
covers personal injuries or only damage to land and property . Courts have largely
ruled that this rule does not apply to personal injury claims .
This was made clear in Transco plc v Stockport MBC (2003) , where the House of Lords
stated that the doctrine was created specifically for property damage and should not be
extended to physical harm . If a person is injured due to an escape, they may need to
pursue a negligence claim instead .
This restriction limits the modern use of Rylands v Fletcher and prevents it from
becoming a general rule for all types of harm .
Conclusion
The Rylands v Fletcher rule remains an important part of tort law, especially in cases
involving environmental damage and industrial activities . It holds landowners strictly
liable for dangerous substances that escape and cause harm to others. However, the rule
has limitations only those with a property interest can sue, and personal injury
claims are generally not allowed .
Defendants can avoid liability if the escape was caused by natural disasters, third
parties, or the claimant’s own fault . Courts have also emphasized that the rule only
applies to unnatural land use , ensuring it is not unfairly used against ordinary activities.
While its role has been reduced in modern tort law , Rylands v Fletcher remains a key
principle in cases where hazardous materials are stored, and its influence is still seen in
environmental and industrial liability cases today.
