Rylands v Fletcher (OCR A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Rylands v Fletcher
Introduction to the tort
Rylands v Fletcher is now recognised as a distinct tort in its own right, despite being named after the original case. This tort operates on the principle of strict liability, which means a defendant can be held liable even if they were not negligent. Because imposing liability without fault is controversial, the courts have adopted a restrictive approach when applying this tort.
The key characteristic of strict liability is that a defendant may be responsible for damage caused by something on their land, regardless of how careful they were in trying to prevent harm.
The original case: Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
The foundational case established the basic principles of this tort.
Case Facts: Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
The defendant constructed a reservoir on his land, which sat above disused mine shafts. Water from the reservoir filtered through the ground into these old shafts and then flooded a neighbouring working mine owned by the claimant, causing extensive damage.
Legal principle: Lord Cranworth articulated the core 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 remains the foundation of the tort today.
Requirements to bring a claim
To succeed in a claim under Rylands v Fletcher, the claimant must establish five essential elements:
- Accumulation on the defendant's land
- A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes
- Escape
- Non-natural use of land
- Damage that is not too remote
All five elements must be satisfied for the claim to succeed. If any one element is missing, the claim will fail.
1. Accumulation on the defendant's land
The defendant must have deliberately brought something hazardous onto their land and kept it there. This requirement has several important aspects:
Bringing onto land: The defendant must have artificially introduced the thing onto their property. If something accumulates naturally, there is no liability.
Giles v Walker (1890) - Natural Accumulation
Thistles naturally grew on the defendant's land and blew onto neighbouring property, damaging crops. The court held there was no liability because the defendant had not brought the thistles onto his land - they had accumulated naturally.
Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997) - Rainwater Accumulation
Bulk fuel installations at an airfield caused rainwater to run off and flood neighbouring land. The court found no liability because the rainwater accumulated naturally rather than being kept there artificially.
For the defendant's own purposes: The accumulation must serve the defendant's purposes, not someone else's.
Dunne v North West Gas Board (1964) - Third Party Purposes
Gas escaped from a gas main damaged by a burst water pipe, travelled through sewers, and ignited, causing explosions and injuries. The Gas Board was not liable because they had not accumulated the gas for their own purposes.
What escapes need not be what was accumulated: The thing that ultimately causes damage does not have to be identical to what was accumulated.
Miles v Forest Rock Granite (1918) - Different Substance Escaping
The defendant used explosives for blasting rocks. Some rocks flew onto the highway and injured the claimant. Although the defendant accumulated explosives, the rocks that escaped and caused harm were sufficient to establish liability.
2. A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes
The accumulated thing does not need to be inherently dangerous. It only needs to be capable of causing damage if it escapes from the defendant's land.
Examples of things that qualify include:
- A flag pole - Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John (1936): A flag pole fell and struck the claimant, establishing that even ordinary objects can satisfy this requirement.
- 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 personal injury claims:
In TransCo v Stockport (2004), Lord Hoffmann clarified the scope of recoverable damages:
The point is now settled by [Cambridge Water] which decided that Rylands v Fletcher is a special form of nuisance and Hunter v Canary Wharf ... which decided that nuisance is a tort against land. It must, I think, follow that damages for personal injuries are not recoverable under the rule.
This means that while earlier cases admitted claims for personal injury, the current position is that Rylands v Fletcher is a tort against land, not a tort protecting personal safety. Therefore, damages for personal injuries cannot be recovered under this tort.
3. Escape
There must be an escape from the defendant's land to somewhere beyond their control. If damage occurs entirely within the defendant's property, this element is not satisfied.
Read v Lyons (1947) - The Escape Requirement
Facts: The claimant worked in the defendant's factory manufacturing explosives for the Ministry of Supply. An explosion killed one person and injured the claimant. There was no evidence that negligence caused the explosion.
Decision: The claim failed because there was no escape. The explosion and resulting damage occurred entirely within the defendant's premises.
Defining escape: In British Celanese v AH Hunt Ltd (1969), the judge explained that escape means moving from circumstances where the defendant has control to circumstances where they do not have control.
4. Non-natural use of land
The use of land must be extraordinary and unusual. This is a crucial limiting factor on the tort's application. What constitutes extraordinary and unusual use can vary depending on time and place - a use that seems unusual in one context might be ordinary in another.
TransCo v Stockport MBC (2004) - Modern Standards
Facts: Water supply pipes leaked and caused damage to gas supply pipes.
Decision: The defendant was not liable. Although water pipes are not strictly "natural," in modern times they are not considered extraordinary and unusual either. Therefore, the non-natural use requirement was not satisfied.
This case shows that the courts interpret this element in light of contemporary standards and practices.
5. Remoteness of damage
As with nuisance, liability under Rylands v Fletcher is governed by the rules on remoteness. The damage must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the escape.
Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (1994) - Foreseeability
Facts: Solvents seeped through the floor of a building into the soil below and eventually contaminated a water company's borehole.
Decision: The defendant was not liable because it was not reasonably foreseeable that the spillages would result in the borehole being closed.
Important limitation - pure economic loss:
There is no liability for pure economic loss under Rylands v Fletcher.
Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966):
Facts: A virus escaped from the defendant's facility, affecting cattle and making them unsaleable.
Decision: No liability because the loss was purely economic - there was no physical damage to the claimant's property or person.
Summary of key cases
Understanding how these principles apply in practice requires familiarity with the leading authorities:
| Case | Element | Legal principle |
|---|---|---|
| Giles v Walker (1890) | Accumulation | No liability for things that naturally accumulate on land |
| Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997) | Accumulation | Natural accumulation of rainwater does not satisfy this requirement |
| Dunne v North West Gas Board (1964) | Accumulation | The thing must be accumulated for the defendant's own purposes |
| Miles v Forest Rock Granite (1918) | Accumulation | What escapes need not be what was accumulated |
| Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John (1936) | Mischief | Even ordinary objects like flag poles can qualify |
| Read v Lyons (1947) | Escape | No escape if damage occurs within defendant's premises |
| TransCo v Stockport MBC (2004) | Non-natural use | Modern utilities are not extraordinary and unusual |
| Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute (1966) | Remoteness | No liability for pure economic loss |
Defences
Various defences may be available to defendants in Rylands v Fletcher claims. These are addressed in the general defences applicable to land-related torts.
When analyzing a problem question, remember to consider whether any of the standard defences to land-related torts might apply after establishing whether the five elements are satisfied.
Exam guidance
When answering questions on Rylands v Fletcher:
Scenario questions:
- Use the IDEA/ILAC method to structure your answer
- Systematically work through each of the five requirements
- Apply relevant case law to the facts
- Consider whether defences might apply
- Advise on the likely outcome
Essay questions:
- Be prepared to evaluate the effectiveness of the law
- Consider whether the tort appropriately balances conflicting interests between neighbours
- Discuss the restrictive modern approach and whether it is justified
- Examine the relationship between Rylands v Fletcher and nuisance
- Analyse the limitations (no personal injury claims, no pure economic loss)
Key command words:
- Analyse: Break down the requirements and examine how they apply
- Evaluate: Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the tort
- Discuss: Present different viewpoints on controversial aspects
- Apply: Use the legal principles to solve a practical problem
Key Points to Remember:
- Rylands v Fletcher is a tort of strict liability - defendants can be liable even without negligence
- Five requirements must all be satisfied: accumulation, thing likely to do mischief, escape, non-natural use, and foreseeable damage
- The thing accumulated need not be inherently dangerous - it just needs to be capable of causing harm if it escapes
- Escape means leaving the defendant's control - damage within the defendant's land is insufficient
- Non-natural use means extraordinary and unusual, judged by modern standards (e.g., water pipes are now ordinary)
- No liability for personal injuries or pure economic loss under this tort
- The courts take a restrictive approach because the tort imposes strict liability
- This is now recognised as a special form of nuisance relating to land