Rylands v. Fletcher

Facts

The defendant employed independent contractors to build a reservoir on his land to supply water to his mill. Beneath the site were old disused mine shafts which the contractors negligently failed to block. When filled, the water burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff's adjoining coal mines. The defendant himself was neither aware of the shafts nor negligent.

Issues

• Whether a person can be held liable for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous thing accumulated on his land in the absence of any negligence on his own part.

Arguments

The plaintiff argued the defendant who accumulated water at his peril must answer for its escape regardless of fault. The defendant argued he had not been negligent, and any negligence was that of the independent contractors, so he should not be liable.

Held

Blackburn J in the Exchequer Chamber held that a person who for his own purposes brings onto his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and is prima facie answerable for all damage that is the natural consequence of its escape. The House of Lords affirmed this, with Lord Cairns adding the qualification that the rule applies where there is a non-natural use of land, as with the reservoir here. The defendant was held liable despite the absence of personal negligence and despite the contractors' role. Liability was thus 'strict', arising from accumulation and escape, not from fault.

Ratio decidendi

A person who, in a non-natural use of his land, accumulates a dangerous thing likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly (prima facie) liable for all damage caused by its escape, irrespective of negligence; the duty is non-delegable.

Significance

The foundational authority establishing no-fault strict liability in tort. Its three essentials (dangerous thing, escape, non-natural use) and recognised exceptions (plaintiff's default, act of God, consent, act of third party, statutory authority) govern strict liability in England and India. It was the springboard from which the Indian Supreme Court evolved the stricter absolute-liability rule in M.C. Mehta.

Related