Session: 2022-2023
Law Of Torts
SUBMITTED BY – SACHIN YADAV
SUBMITTED TO – DR. ANKITA YADAV
(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR)
ENROLLMENT NUMBER – 220101127
SEMESTER – 2nd
SECTION – B
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to take this opportunity to extend a word of my gratitude
to esteemed ‘Law of Torts’ teacher Dr ANKITA YADAV who has been a
constant source of inspiration for me in the pursuance of this project.
He has been gracious enough to guide me on the right path which has
enabled me to strengthen my efforts pertaining to the comprehensive
research and efforts put into the making of this project. I would also
wish the reader of my project a knowledgeable experience. The project
has been researched meticulously and has been materialized whilst
making sure that the utmost level of care and finesse is undertaken so
as to see that the information mentioned is concurrent with the highest
benchmarks of accuracy, precision, and perfection.
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this project report submitted by me to Dr.
Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow in
partial fulfillment of requirement for the award of degree of
BALLB(Hons) is a record of bona fide project Work carried out
by me under the guidance of professor Dr ANKITA YADAV. I
further declare that the project reported in this project has not
been submitted and will not be submitted either in part or in
full for the award of any degree or diploma in this Institute or
any other Institute or any University.
SACHIN YADAV
220101127
CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION
2.HYPOTHESIS
3.RULE IN RYLANDS VS FLETCHER
4.JUDGEMENTS GIVEN BY VARIOUS COURTS:
-COURT OF LIVERPOOL
-COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
-HOUSE OF LORDS
5.STRICT LIABILITY
6. PREREQUISITES FOR ONE TO RELY ON THE CASE OF RYLAND
VS FLETCHER
7.STRICT LIABILITY IN CIVIL LAW
8.STRICT LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW
9.CONCLUSION
10.BIBLIOGRAPHY
RULE IN RYLANDS VS FLETCHER:
INTRODUCTION:
This research assesses the judgment of Rylands vs. Fletcher, a case
decided in the early 1860s (specifically 1860-1868). In this case, the
plaintiff (Fletcher) sued Rylands for the putative injury caused by the
defendant. The defendant (Rylands) owned a water reservoir. The water
from the reservoir poured into the plaintiff's land, causing damage to his
mines. This will constitute the basis for determining whether or not this
rule fits in the context of this discussion of Commonwealth countries,
and whether or not the rule has weathered the test of time to merit
recognition in the present.
HYPOTHESIS:
It has been assumed for a long time that the rule of Rylands vs fletcher
which is “strict liability” does not have any place in the current scenario
or what we call it as a modern world.
The rule in Rylands vs. Fletcher:
In this case a person named "Thomas Fletcher" was the plaintiff, whilst
John Rylands was the defendant. Under the circumstances, the defendant
had built a reservoir on leased land for the purpose of supplying water to
his mechanized textile mill. Rylands' land was adjacent to Thomas
Fletcher's. Fletcher operated mines on his property and had excavated up
to defunct mines beneath the ground where the plaintiff's reservoir was
located. The land that both groups were utilizing had been leased from
lord Wilton and the "activities that each conducted were legal". Rylands
engaged independent contractors and experts to construct the reservoir.
As the contractors were at work,1 they stumbled upon several deserted
mine shafts that were partially filled with marl and soil. The contractors
"made no effort" to mend the shafts. These shafts linked into the
plaintiff's (Fletcher's) mines and property via a network of
interconnecting shafts and channels. Upon completion, the dam burst
and drowned Fletcher's farm and mines. In those conditions, Thomas
Fletcher filed a lawsuit against John Rylands.
There have been various decisions that were given by different courts
with regard to the rule in Rylands vs Fletcher. Here are some of the
interpretations:
The Court of Liverpool
In this judgement given by the court of Liverpool, the court ruled in
favor of the plaintiff on the grounds of nuisance and trespass. Rylands
was displeased with the outcome in this lawsuit and so requested that it
be heard by the three judges of the exchequer, which he achieved. "The
earlier the decision was overturned by the three exchequer judges. The
exchequer judges based their decision on the concept of trespass, which
requires direct human involvement in the invasion of the peaceful use of
land. This form of incursion "needed proof of purpose or carelessness".
Court Of Exchequer Chamber
Fletcher was furious by the decision of the three exchequer judges and
filed an appeal with the exchequer chamber of six judges. The six judges
"overturned the preceding ruling," this time in Fletcher's favor. "We, the
judges of the exchequer, believe that the correct rule of law is that any
person who, for his own intentions, brings on his land, accrues and
wants to keep on the land anything that is likely to cause trouble if it
escapes, must keep it under his own risk, and, if he fails to do so, he is
prima facie (without need for further information), publicly accountable
1
Ltd, A.A. (2022) Rylands v fletcher case summary, Law Teacher. Law Teacher. Available at:
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/rylands-v-fletcher.php (Accessed: April 11, 2023).
2
for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape," the
judges wrote.
The judges stated that "none of these justifications had been shown in
the case", and it was therefore "unnecessary to find out what alternate
excuse would be adequate". The judges gave their ruling on the "basis of
the culpability for damages of land via the tort of chattel of trespass, the
tort of annoyance," as well as "the scienter action (common law rule that
deals with damages directly caused by animals to humans)"
(Duhame.org, 2009). This did not sit well with Rylands. He made an
appeal to the House of Lords.
House Of Lords
Rhyland's appeal was declined by the House of Lords. They concurred
with the six exchequer judges but went on to create a liability limitation.
The judgement by the six exchequer judges has more validation as
compared to other judgements hence been followed.
Strict Liability
These judgements have originated a rule known as the “rule of strict
liability”.
From the proceedings of this case, there evolved what is termed "the
strict liability" aimed at avoiding "misrepresentation of facts in a court
of law". "The defendant's (Rylands) reservoir caused an old mine shaft
owned by Fletcher to collapse," according to our case.
It was shown in courts that "the defendants were not negligent" but yet
the judges declared that "the defendants needed to pay damages to the
plaintiff, and they conformed". Hence, the decision established the idea
of strict responsibility "but only in restricted situations," as declared by
2
Case analysis: Rylands V/S fletcher (no date) Legal Service India - Law, Lawyers, and Legal Resources. Available at:
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-8016-case-analysis-rylands-v-s-fletcher.html (Accessed: April 11,
2023).
the court. "Anyone desiring to rely on this concept must meet specific
3
standards that were stressed by the courts throughout this case,"
according to the ruling.
Prerequisites For One to Rely on The Case of Rylands and Fletcher
1. The defendant must have introduced something into his property.
The presence of a risky object is the first essential need for the rule
established in Ryland v Fletcher to be operative. A person can be held
responsible solely if the item he acquired or purchased was harmful.
What is hazardous may vary according to the facts and circumstances of
the case. Poisonous plants, explosives, unpleasant vapors, rusted wire,
and other harmful items are examples.
2. Land usage that is not natural
The last prerequisite for applying the strict responsibility rule is that the
dangerous object was put within the realm of non-natural land use. The
use must be "some distinctive use bearing with it heightened threat to
others and must not just by ordinary use of land or such a use as is
appropriate for the general benefit of the community" to be termed non-
natural. [iii] Growing a tree on your property, for example, is a natural
use of land; but planting a poisonous tree on your property is a non-
natural use of land because it raises the danger to others.
3. Something must be able to inflict harm.
The Court of Exchequer chambers said that "if a person takes onto his
land something which is likely to produce evil if it escapes, the person
preserves it at his own danger".
4. Go away (Escape)
3
-, R.F. et al. (2022) Concept of strict liability and absolute liability, iPleaders. Available at:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-strict-liability-absolute-liability/ (Accessed: April 11, 2023).
4
The escape of a hazardous item acquired by the defendant is another
reason for the employment of the strict responsibility rule. "The object
must flee to an area not occupied or controlled by the defendant." If the
object did not escape yet injury was nonetheless caused, the defendant
cannot be held liable. Assume you bought an explosive chemical to
conduct an experiment at home. The explosive chemical unexpectedly
exploded while you were doing the experiment, injuring a coworker.
Because the object cannot escape outside your premises, you cannot be
held liable under the strict accountability rule.
Strict Liability in Civil Law
As an alternative choice to criminal law, there is civil law. The state
prosecutes someone for misconduct in criminal instances, whereas
individuals use the court system to rectify wrongs done against them
under civil law.
Tort law is the most comprehensive branch of civil law, and it allows
persons who have been injured to seek restitution from those who have
damaged them.
Plaintiffs must establish that a person was careless or acted willfully in
numerous tort or personal injury actions. This proof, however, is not
essential in strict responsibility suits. The particular circumstances under
which strict liability rules apply vary by jurisdiction, but three of the
most prevalent include product liability, animal bites, and abnormally
dangerous conditions or ultrahazardous activities.
Strict Liability in Criminal Law
Outside of civil law, strict liability exists. While most crimes entail
either purpose or recklessness as a component, there are a few strict
liability offences in which mental state is immaterial.
4
Editor_4 and Indulia, B. (2020) Tort archives, SCC Blog. Available at:
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/tort/ (Accessed: April 11, 2023).
5
One illustration of a strict liability crime is statutory rape. When a
criminal engages in sexual intercourse with a minor, he or she commits
this felony. It doesn't matter whether the defendant was aware the victim
was a juvenile or was careless in identifying the victim's age. If the
defendant engages in sexual contact with someone under the legal age of
consent, the defendant may be prosecuted with a felony under strict
liability standards.
CONCLUSION:
The rules of strict responsibility and absolute liability are exceptions. A
man is punished only when he is at fault. In any event, the guiding
concept governing these two ideas is that a man can be put in danger
even when he is not at fault. This is recognized as the "no-fault liability"
principle. According to these principles, the liable individual may not
have committed the act, but he is nevertheless responsible for the harm
created by the conduct. It is possible to assume that, due to strict
responsibility, there are a few exceptions where the respondent would
not be held accountable. Yet, owing to complete accountability, no
exceptions are given for the response. The plaintiff will be influenced to
administer anyhow, under strict responsibility. Tort is a type of common
wrong for which the remedy is a precedent-based legal action for
unliquidated harms, and which isn't just a breach of an agreement, trust,
or other just and reasonable commitment. A number of standards are
used to represent tort law. A man is generally responsible for his own
mistakes, but he is not liable for the mistakes of others. If someone
commits a mistake, he is held responsible for it. The at-risk individual
may not have performed any acts of carelessness or made any
constructive attempts in this scenario, but the regulation forces him to
pay. This approach is founded on two seminal cases: Rylands v. Fletcher
(strict liability) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (absolute liability).
The principles of strict liability make it apparent that a person who keeps
5
Ram, O. (2021) Rylands v fletcher case summary 1868, Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law Exams
Preparation. Available at: https://lawplanet.in/rylands-v-fletcher-case-summary-1868/ (Accessed: April 11, 2023).
harmful substances on his property is accountable if the material escapes
and causes injury. This idea is valid if there was no carelessness on the
part of the person holding it, and the burden of proof consistently lies on
the litigant to act in such a way that he is not in danger. Although this
rule of absolute liability held that where such an undertaking is occupied
with a potentially hazardous or hazardous movement and harm results to
anyone as a result of a blunder in the task of such a risky or distinctively
hazardous action occurring, the venture is strictly and absolutely liable
to repay to all individuals who are affected by the accident. All of these
laws are based on the "no-fault liability concept," which states that "the
respondent is held liable regardless of whether he is expressly or
implicitly responsible for the injuries produced to the offended party."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/rylands-v-fletcher.php
2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-8016-
case-analysis-rylands-v-s-fletcher.html
3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/concept-strict-liability-absolute-
liability/
4. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/tort/
5. https://lawplanet.in/rylands-v-fletcher-case-summary-
1868/
