Rylands v Fletcher (AQA A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Rylands v Fletcher
Introduction to the tort
Rylands v Fletcher is a distinct tort in its own right, although it takes its name from a case. It operates as a form of strict liability, meaning a defendant can be held liable even without being negligent or at fault. This makes it controversial, and consequently, courts have taken a restrictive approach when applying this tort.
Understanding Strict Liability
Unlike most torts which require proof of fault or negligence, strict liability means the defendant can be held responsible simply because the harmful event occurred, regardless of how careful they were or what precautions they took.
The tort can be defined as: where the escape of non-naturally stored material onto neighbouring property causes damage to or destroys that property.
The original case: Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
Case Example: Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
Facts: The defendant built a reservoir on his property, which sat above an abandoned mine. Water from the reservoir seeped through into the disused mine shafts below, then spread to an active mine owned by the claimant next door, causing substantial damage.
Legal principle: Lord Cranworth established the fundamental rule:
If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. 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.
This statement emphasises that liability exists regardless of how much care the defendant took—it is the accumulation and escape that matters.
Requirements for liability
To establish a claim under Rylands v Fletcher, a claimant must prove five key elements:
- Accumulation on the defendant's land
- A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes
- Escape from the defendant's land
- Non-natural use of land
- The damage must not be too remote
All Five Elements Must Be Satisfied
Each element must be satisfied for the claim to succeed. If even one element is missing, the entire claim will fail. This is a strict requirement that makes the tort difficult to establish.
1. Accumulation on the defendant's land
The defendant must have deliberately brought something hazardous onto their land and kept it there. Naturally occurring things do not count.
Key principles:
- The defendant must have actively brought the thing onto the land—it cannot be something that naturally accumulated there
- The thing must be kept there for the defendant's own purposes
- The thing that ultimately escapes does not need to be the exact thing that was accumulated (for example, accumulated explosives can cause rocks to escape)
Case Example: Giles v Walker (1890)
Facts: Thistles from the defendant's land blew onto neighbouring property and damaged the claimant's crops.
Held: No liability under Rylands v Fletcher because the defendant had not brought the thistles onto his land—they grew there naturally. There can be no liability for things that naturally accumulate on land.
Case Example: Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997)
Facts: Bulk fuel installations at an airfield caused rainwater to run off and flood neighbouring land.
Held: The rainwater accumulated naturally and was not kept there artificially by the defendant, so there was no accumulation under Rylands v Fletcher.
Case Example: Dunne v North West Gas Board (1964)
Facts: Gas escaped from a gas main after being disturbed by a burst water main. It travelled through a sewer and ignited, causing explosions and injuries.
Held: The Gas Board had not accumulated gas for its own purposes—it was supplying gas to customers—so this element was not satisfied.
Case Example: Miles v Forest Rock Granite (1918)
Facts: The defendant was blasting rocks using explosives. Some rocks flew onto the highway, injuring the claimant.
Held: The explosives were accumulated by the defendant and caused the rocks to escape, satisfying this element.
2. A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes
The thing accumulated does not need to be inherently dangerous or hazardous. It simply needs to be something that is likely to cause damage if it escapes from the defendant's land.
Examples of things that qualify:
- A flagpole—Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John (1936): the defendant's flagpole fell and hit the claimant, constituting an escape
- Branches from yew trees—Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board (1879)
- A fairground ride—Hale v Jennings Bros (1938)
- Electricity—Hillier v Air Ministry (1962)
Important limitation on damages:
In TransCo v Stockport (2004), Lord Hoffmann clarified an important limitation. He referred to the decision in Cambridge Water, which established that Rylands v Fletcher is a special form of nuisance. He also referenced Hunter v Canary Wharf, which confirmed that nuisance is a tort against land.
Lord Hoffmann concluded:
It must, I think, follow that damages for personal injuries are not recoverable under the rule.
No Personal Injury Claims
This means Rylands v Fletcher only protects property interests, not personal injury claims. Claimants cannot recover damages for personal injuries under this tort—only for damage to property.
3. Escape
There must be an escape from the defendant's land to the claimant's land or another place. An injury caused by the hazardous thing while it remains on the defendant's own land will not give rise to liability.
Definition of escape:
In British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd (1969), the judge explained that an escape means moving "from a set of circumstances over which the defendant has control to a set of circumstances where he does not".
Case Example: Read v Lyons (1947)
Facts: The claimant worked in the defendant's factory making explosives for the Ministry of Supply. An explosion killed one person and injured the claimant. There was no evidence of negligence.
Held: There was no escape—the explosion happened on the defendant's land where the claimant was present. Therefore, Rylands v Fletcher did not apply.
This case demonstrates that the thing must actually leave the defendant's land or control for this element to be satisfied. Damage occurring entirely within the defendant's property does not constitute an escape.
4. Non-natural use of land
The defendant's use of the land must be "extraordinary and unusual". What counts as extraordinary and unusual may vary depending on the time and place. A use that seems unusual in one era or location might be considered ordinary in another.
Case Example: TransCo v Stockport MBC (2004)
Facts: Water supply pipes leaked and caused damage to gas supply pipes.
Held: Although water supply pipes are not strictly "natural", in modern times they are not extraordinary and unusual either. Therefore, the defendant was not liable under Rylands v Fletcher.
Contemporary Standards Apply
This case shows that the courts consider contemporary standards when assessing whether a use of land is non-natural. Ordinary utilities and infrastructure that serve a community benefit are unlikely to be considered non-natural use.
5. Remoteness of damage
As with nuisance, liability under Rylands v Fletcher is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage. This means the type of damage that occurs must have been reasonably foreseeable.
Case Example: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)
Facts: Solvents seeped through the floor of a building into the soil below and eventually reached a water company's borehole.
Held: It was not reasonably foreseeable that the spillages would result in the closing of the borehole, so the damage was too remote.
No liability for pure economic loss:
There is no liability under Rylands v Fletcher for pure economic loss (financial loss not connected to property damage or personal injury).
Case Example: Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966)
Facts: A virus escaped from the defendant's facility, affecting cattle and making them unsaleable.
Held: No liability under Rylands v Fletcher for pure economic loss.
Defences
Several defences are available to a defendant in a Rylands v Fletcher claim:
- Act of a stranger: where the escape was caused by the unforeseeable actions of a third party over whom the defendant had no control
- Wrongful act of a third party: similar to act of a stranger
- Act of God: where the escape was caused by natural forces that could not reasonably have been foreseen or prevented
- Statutory authority: where the defendant's actions were authorised by statute
- Consent/benefit: where the claimant consented to the accumulation or derived some benefit from it
Exam guidance
Assessment: This content will be assessed in the tort law paper as part of the AQA A-Level Law specification.
Potential exam questions:
- Multiple-choice questions testing knowledge of the individual elements of Rylands v Fletcher
- Short to mid-length questions asking you to explain the meaning of elements in relation to concepts like "fault-based liability" or "strict liability"
- Long-answer scenario questions requiring application of all elements to a factual situation
Exam Technique: The IDEA Method
When answering problem questions on Rylands v Fletcher, work systematically through each of the five elements. Use the IDEA method:
- Identify the relevant legal rule
- Define the legal principle
- Explain how it applies
- Apply it to the facts
Remember that all five elements must be satisfied for liability to arise. If one element is missing, the claim will fail.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
- Rylands v Fletcher is a form of strict liability—defendants can be liable without being negligent
- There are five essential requirements: accumulation, a thing likely to do mischief if it escapes, escape, non-natural use of land, and the damage must not be too remote
- The thing accumulated does not need to be inherently dangerous—it just needs to be capable of causing damage if it escapes
- Natural accumulation does not count—the defendant must have actively brought the thing onto the land
- Escape means moving from circumstances under the defendant's control to circumstances where they have no control
- Non-natural use means extraordinary and unusual—this is judged by contemporary standards
- No liability for personal injuries or pure economic loss—only property damage is recoverable
- The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable to avoid being too remote