CASE ANALYSIS OF RYLANDS (VS) FLETCHER

Case: - Rylands (vs) Fletcher

Year: - 1868

Judges: - Lord cairns & Lord Coanworth

Date of Judgement: - 11th July, 1868

Principle: - Rule of Strict Liability

Introduction:

Rylands (vs) Fletcher is a famous English case in which rule of “Strict

Liability” was established. “Strict Liability” is also called no fault liability if
the damages were unintentional.

Facts: The plaintiff and defendant were neighbouring property owners. The
defendant, a mill owner, hired independent contractors for the construction
of a water reservoir on his land1. While working, the contractors came
across passages under the reservoir which was filled loosely only with Earth
and sediments, but they chose to ignore the problem. Once the reservoir
was full, water broke through the shafts, flooding the mine property owned
by the plaintiff causing considerable damage. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a
suit against the defendant to recover his lost gains.

Issue: The issue in the case was if the defendant would be held liable for
an act executed by another.

Legal Issues and Decision Taken:

➢ In the House of Lords, the defendant can't be held liable due to

damage caused to the plaintiff as a result of the latter's own default.
In Ponting (vs) Noakes a horse owned by the plaintiff wandered into
the defendant's land & took leaves of a poisonous tree. The court held
that the plaintiff was denied the benefit of the Strict Liability Rule.

1
Neha Rajput, Case Analysis of Ryland v. Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL
330, (Nov.07, 2024, 7.30 PM), Case Analysis of Ryland v. Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1,
(1868) LR 3 HL 330.
1
➢ According to Blackburn J. “circumstances which no human can
provide against, and of which human prudence is not bound to
recognise the possibility" which is called “Act of God” in this case, My
House of Lords. This can be understood from the case of Nichols (vs)
Marsland where the Court held that the defendant was not guilty
because of supernatural forces without any human intervention.

➢ If the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of dangerous things

on defendant land, then the plaintiff does not have any right of
complaint & rule of Strict Liability could not be applied. It is similar to
the rule of free consent.

Case Referred: Carstairs (vs) Taylor (VI)

The plaintiff hired the ground floor of the defendant's

house on rent. The court held that defendant’s can’t
be held liable as the plaintiff had consented to
accumulation of dangerous things.

➢ The third party causes any damages to which the defendant has no
control, then the Rule of Strict Liability can’t be applied.

Case Referred: Box (vs) Jubb (VII)

The Court held the defendant could not be held liable

as damage has been caused by an act of a stranger.

➢ If the damage has been caused by an act which the legislature

authorizes, then the Rule of Strict Liability can’t be applied.

Case Referred: Green (vs) Chelsea waterworks

Co. (VIII)

The Court held that the company was not liable as

the company was engaged in performing a duty.

2
Other Important Cases for Reference: -

1. Smith (vs) Kenrick (IX)

2. Chadwick (vs) Trover (X)
3. Partidge (vs) Seott (XI)

Common Benefit – If the source of danger was maintained for the benefit
of both plaintiff and defendant then the defendant will not be liable for its
escape.

Case Referred: Winfield (vs) Jolowicz (P551)

It is intent to note the evolution of absolute Liability

rule, where Strict Liability is accepted doctrine.
Though it was rarely enforced in Courts. In the
Supreme Court M.C.Mehta vs Union of India, 15th &
19th Century was found to be inadequate due to
developmental projects. Thus, provoking the
absolute nature of principle.
➢ In law, there is a difference between things that grow naturally on
the land and those that are accumulated artificially by the defendant.
Example: - Rocks naturally occur on land. Actually, the defendant
brought water into the land.

➢ In the House of Lords, it was laid that the requirement must be a

non-natural use of land.

Case Referred: Ellison (vs) Ministry of Defence

(1997) 81 BLR 101, (1997) CLY 3864.

➢ In case, the thing that was brought into the land must be something
likely to do mischief if it escapes, the defendant must keep it in only
at his own risk.

3
 ➢ The water flowed from Rylands’s mill (defendant’s mill), there was an
escape of dangerous substances (like explosives).

➢ Foreseeability

Case Referred: Cambridge water case (1994)

➢ The defendant had saved a lot of water which overflowed & made the
damage to the plaintiff’s land. Since the defendant is the one who did
not take any measures for water escape, he must be held liable.

➢ So, it is the defendant’s water from the reservoir which overflowed

and caused damage to my client, My Lord.

➢ There are also many important cases like Smith (vs) Kenrick (XII),
Baird (vs) Williamoon (XIII), Hodgkinson (vs) Ennor (XIV), Dambert
(vs) Bossey (XV)

Judgment:

The Court held the defendant liable for the incurred damage to the
plaintiff and thereby the 'Rule of Strict Liability' has been laid down.
This Rule states that when an individual permits the stay of a dangerous or
hazardous substance onto his land and the substance escapes causing harm
to the surroundings, then the individual who brought the substance to the
land will be held liable for the resulting damage.

The civil liability falling onto the defendant would be immaterial of the fact
that the defendant has taken reasonable care or not and therefore prima
facie answerable. Evenso, the rule of strict liability entails certain
exceptions based on circumstantial facts where the defendant's liability
may be laid off.

Critical Analysis:

The case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) is a landmark decision in English

tort law, particularly regarding the law of strict liability. In this case, the
House of Lords established a rule that a person who brings something onto
their land that is likely to cause harm if it escapes, is strictly liable for any
4
 damage caused by that escape, even if they were not negligent2. This ruling
laid the foundation for what became known as the Rylands v Fletcher rule,
or the principle of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

The following exceptions to the rule have been recognised by

Rylands v. Fletcher and some later cases:

1. Act of God
Act of God (vis major) was also considered to be a defence against the
action of strict liability. If the escape has been unforeseen and takes
place because of super natural forces without any human
intervention,the defence of act of God can be pleaded.

In the case of Nichols v. Marsland, the defendant created artificial lakes

on his land by damming up a natural stream. That year, there was
extraordinarily heavy rainfall by which embankment constructed for lake
gave way. The rush of water washed away plaintiff's four bridges. The
plaintiff brought an action to recover damage for the same. It was found
out that there was no negligence from defendant's side. The accident
was considered an act of God and the defendant was not held liable.

2. Consent of the Plaintiff

When the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of the dangerous

thing on the defendant's land, the liability under the rule does not
arise. Such consent is implied where the source of danger is for the
'common benefit' of both the plaintiff and the defendant.

In Carstairs v. Taylor case, the plaintiff hired ground floor of a building

from the defendant. The upper floor was occupied by defendant. Water
stored on the upper floor leaked without any negligence on the part of

2
Brian Duignan, Negligence, The editors of Encylopaedia, Britannica, 2024.
5
 the defendant3. The water destroyed the plaintiff's goods on the
ground floor. As the water had been stored for the benefit of both, the
plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant was not held liable.

3. Act of Third Party

If the harm has been caused due to act of a stranger, who is neither
the defendant's servant nor the defendant has any control over him,
the defendant will not be liable under this rule. Thus, in Box v. Jubb,
the overflow from the defendant's reservoir was caused by the
blocking of a drain by strangers, the defendant was not held liable for
that.

4. Plaintiff's Own Default

Damage caused by escape due to the plaintiff's own default was

considered to be a good defence in Rylands v. Fletcher itself. If the
plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into the defendant's
property, he cannot complain for the damage so caused.

In Ponting v. Noakes, the plaintiff's horse intruded into the

defendant's land and died after having nibbled the leaves of a
poisonous tree there. The defendant was not held liable because
damage would not have occurred, but due to the horse's own intrusion
to the defendant's land, damage occurred.
When the damage to the plaintiff's property is not caused much by the
'escape' of the things collected by the defendant but by the unusual
sensitiveness of the plaintiff's property itself, the plaintiff cannot
recover anything.

3
Mohd Aqip Aslam, Liability (Strict Liability, Absolute Liability and Vicarious Liability)
Under Law of Tort (Nov.07, 2024, 7.40 PM),
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4532-liability-strict-liability-absolute-
liability-and-vicarious-liability-under-law-of-tort.html.

6
Conclusion:

Rylands v Fletcher remains a foundational case in tort law, establishing

an important principle of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities.
While it has been critiqued for its broad scope and lack of fault
consideration, it also serves as a reminder that landowners and businesses
have a responsibility to manage risks in a way that protects public welfare.
Over time, courts have refined the rule, aligning it with more modern
principles of foreseeability and reasonable precautions. Nonetheless, the
case remains crucial in the development of tort law, especially with respect
to liability for the escape of dangerous substances.