File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce

in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in

India

Case Analysis: Rylands v/s Fletcher

By Black Justice | Views 119361

10 2 2

Blogger 4 whatsapp 21 pocket 7

Digg 5

In cases of torts, the general rule is that the person

who causes damage to other person either
intentionally or via his negligence shall pay
damages to the a!ected party. This rule however,
if followed strictly leads to many problems. For
example, if I bought an explosive material on my
house to do some experiment and it explodes
without my negligence or knowledge on its own.

Can I Be held liable? Surely not, as there was

neither any intention to cause harm nor any
negligence is there. Thus, his rule is somewhat
absurd. To solve the issues caused by this rule, the
House of Lords in Rylands v/s Fletcher
propounded a new rule called as "RuleRule of Strict
liability
liability" or "No
No Fault Liability
Liability". According to
this rule, a person can be held liable even there is
no negligence on his part.

Case Name: Rylands v/s Fletcher - Citation:

UKHL 1, L.R. 3 H.L. 330.
Judges: Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth - Date of
Judgement- July 17, 1868

Facts of the Case

The defendant, Rylands constructed a reservoir
over his land for providing water to his mill via
independent contractors. There were some old
disused shafts under the reservoir which the
contractors failed to notice. As a result these
shafts remained unblocked. When the water was
filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shafts
and flooded the plainti!'s coal mines on the
neighbouring land. Though there was no
negligence on the part of the defendant, Rylands,
the plainti!, Fletcher sued the defendant for
damages.

Issues:
1. Whether there was any nuisance or not?
2. Was the use of Defendant's land
unreasonable and thus was he to be held
liable for damages incurred by the Plainti!?

Judgement
Court of Liverpool
The Court of Liverpool gave its judgement in the
favour of defendant holding that there was neither
any trespass (as the flooding was not direct and
immediate) nor any nuisance (as the flooding was
not a continuous event, it is a one o! event). Later,
in December, 1864, via a Court order an arbitrator
was appointed for the case. The arbitrator too
decided in favour of the defendant by stating that
the defendant had no way of knowing about the
mine shafts so he could not be held liable. The
arbitrators however, held the contractors liable for
their negligence.

Court of Exchequer of Pleas

The case afterwards went to Exchequer of appeals
for hearing.

The Court heard this case on two issues:

1. Whether the defendants were liable for the
actions of the contractors
2. Whether the defendants were liable for the
damage regardless of their lack of
negligence

The Court unanimously decided that the

defendant was not liable for the actions of
contractors but have mixed views on the second
issue. While Pollock CB J. and Martin B J. held that
the defendants were not liable as there was no
negligence on part of defendant, Bramwell B. J.
held that the defendant was liable as the claimant
had the right to enjoy his land free of interference
from water and it was the defendant's act (i.e. act
of building reservoir) which actually caused
flooding of water on claimant's land and thus held
the defendant liable for trespass and nuisance.

Court of Exchequer Chamber

Aggrieved by the decision of Court of Exchequer of
Pleas, Fletcher appealed to the Exchequer
Chamber composed of six judges. The judges
overturned the decision of Court of Exchequer of
Pleas. It was in this Court where the rule of Strict
liability was first time propounded.

Blackburn J. discussed on behalf of all Judges and

stated that:

We think that the rule of law is, that the person

who for his own purpose brings on his lands and
keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it
escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does
not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the
damage which is the natural consequence of its
escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the
escape was owing to the plainti!'s own default; or
perhaps that the escape was the consequence of
vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this
sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what
excuse would be su"cient. [i]

Thus, the rule of strict liability was laid: that if a

person bought any dangerous thing on his
premises and if that thing escapes and cause
damage, then the person would be held liable for
all the damage it has caused regardless of his
negligence, knowledge or intention. The Court
however, also provided certain exceptions where
this rule won't be applied i.e. Act of God, Plainti!'s
own default. But as none of these exceptions are
there in Rylands v/s Fletcher case case, the Court
held Ryland liable for the damage caused to
Fletcher.

House of Lords
Aggrieved by the judgement of Court of Exchequer
Chamber, Rylands went for appeal in House of
Lords. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal
but went further to explain the rule of strict liability
more granulously and put some limitations on the
rule of strict liability. The Court held that for the
applicability of the rule of strict liability, it is
necessary that the land from which escape occurs
must have been modified in a way which would be
considered non natural, unusual or
inappropriate[ii]. Thus, "Non natural use of land"
was made an essential for the applicability of rule
of strict liability.

Current Status of Rule of Strict Liability

Through Rylands v/s Fletcher and many other
later cases various developments took place
regarding the rule of strict liability. While certain
exceptions like Act of third party and Statutory
authority were added to the rule, the pivotal
conditions for the applicability of the rule were
also clarified by Courts. The essentials for the
applicability of rule of strict liability can be
summarised as follows:
1. Presence of Dangerous thing:
The first essential requirement for
applicability of rule laid down in Ryland V
Fletcher is the presence of a dangerous
thing. A person can be made liable only if
the thing which he had collected or had
bought was dangerous. What is dangerous
may depend on facts and circumstances of
the case. Some of the examples of
dangerous things are: poisonous trees,
explosives, noxious fumes, rusty wire, etc.

2. Escape:
Another requirement for the applicability of
strict liability rule is the escape of dangerous
thing bought by the defendant. "The thing
must escape to the area outside the
occupation and control of the defendant." If
the thing did not escape and damage is still
caused, the defendant then can't be held
liable. For instance, if you bought an
explosive material for doing some
experiment in your home. While doing the
experiment, the explosive material suddenly
exploded and injured your co worker
working with you. Here, you can't be held
liable under the rule of strict liability as there
is no escape of the thing outside your
premises.

3. Non natural use of land:

The last requirement for the applicability of
rule of strict liability is that the dangerous
thing was brought in purview of non natural
use of land. For the use to be non natural it
"must be some special use bringing with it
increased danger to others, and must not
merely by ordinary use of land or such a use
as is proper for the general benefit of the
community"[iii] For instance, if you grow a
tree on your land, it is natural use of land
but if you grow a poisonous tree on your
land, it is a non natural use of land as it bring
with itself an increased danger to others.

Exceptions
However, in Ryland v/s Fletcher, certain exceptions
were also stated in which rule of strict liability
cannot be applied. Many other exceptions were
also added in later cased.

The exceptions of the rule of strict liability

can be summarised as follows:
1. Plainti!'s own default:
If the damage is caused by plainti!'s own
default or wrongdoing then the rule of strict
liability can't be applied. For instance, in
Ponting V Noakes[iv], the plainti!'s horse
itself intruded in defendant's property and
ate poisonous leaves. The Court held that as
the damage is caused by plainti!'s own fault
as he let his horse intrude into the property
of defendant (either purposely or via
negligence). Had the horse not intruded into
the property of plainti!, the damage would
not have been caused. Hence, the court held
that in this case the plainti! didn't have any
right to complaint.

2. Act of God:
The term "Act of God' has been defined by
Blackburn J. in Rylands V Fletcher. According
to him "Circumstances which no human
foresight can provide against, and of which
human prudence is not bound to recognize
the possibility" are called Act of God. The
same can be understood via reference of
Nichols V Marsland[v], in which the
defendant created artificial lakes on his land.
But that year, there happened to be an
extraordinary rainfall, highest in human
memory, as a result of which embankments
of lakes gave away and damaged plainti!'s
four bridges. The Court held that the
defendant was not guilty as it was an act of
god as it was totally unforeseen and had
happened because of supernatural forces
without any human intervention.

3. Consent of the Plainti!:

According to this exception, if the plainti!
has consented to the accumulation of
dangerous thing on the defendant's land,
then the plainti! does not have any right of
complaint and the rule of strict liability could
not be applied. It s similar to the rule of
volenti non fit injuria. The consent of the
plainti! can be express or implied. The
consent is express, when the plainti!
assertively gives his consent. For example, A
and B lives in the same house.

A wants plant a poisonous tree in the house

for research purpose and ask B if he is OK
with that. B agrees. Here, the consent given
is express. On the other hand consent can
also be implied. Strictly talking of strict
liability, consent is implied when the source
of danger is for the 'common benefit' of both
plainti! and defendant. For instance, in
Carstairs V Taylor[vi], the plainti! hired
ground floor of defendant's house on rent.

There happened to be a water tank on the

roof for supply of water. One day, the water
from the tank leaked and damaged plainti!'s
goods. It was held that the defendant's can't
be held liable as plainti! impliedly had
consented to the accumulation of dangerous
thing (as the thing was installed for the
common benefit of both plainti! and
defendant).

4. Act of third party:

If the damages has been caused by the act
of a third party or stranger over whom
defendant has no control, then rule of strict
liability can't be applied. For instance, in Box
V Jubb[vii], some strangers blocked the drain
of defendant's reservoir as a result of which
the reservoir overflowed and damaged
plainti!'s property. The Court held that the
defendant could not be held liable as the
damage has been caused by the act of
stranger.

It must be noted that if the act of stranger

can be foreseen and prevented by the
defendant, then the defendant has a duty to
stop it. Failure on part of defendant to do so
would make him liable.

5. Statutory Authority:
If the damage has been caused by an act
which the legislature authorizes then; the
rule of strict liability can't be applied. For
example. If a railway line is constructed by a
Statute and some damage is caused by it,
then the person can't use the rule of strict
liability. In Green V Chelsea Waterworks
Co[viii], the defendant company had a
statutory duty to maintain continuous
supply of water. A main belonging to the
Company burst without any negligence on
its part, as a consequence of which the
plainti!'s premises were flooded with water.
It was held that the company was not liable
as the company was engaged in performing
a statutory duty.

Important Cases cited

Cases in favour of defendant
1. Smith v/s Kenrick [ix]:
In this case, the plainti! and defendant used
to mine on the adjacent land. The defendant
dug holes in the ordinary course of mining
as a result of which, the water flowed from
the defendant's mine into the plainti!'s
mine by gravitation and caused damage. It
was held that the defendant was not liable
as "each owner had a right to work in his
own mine in the best way for his benefit and
if he did so without negligence, he was not
liable to other for prejudice to his property
which might thereby arise.

2. Chadwick v/s Trover [x]:

In this case, a man pulled down his own wall
without giving notice to his neighbour(as he
was not legally bound to do so) and thereby
caused damage to the latter's underground
wall of which the defendant had no
knowledge. It was held that the man was not
liable as there was no knowledge present on
his part that by doing so he would cause
damage to other party.

3. Partridge v/s Seott [xi]:

In this case, the defendant employed some
competent persons to perform a lawful act.
But some damage to plainti! due to the
negligence of the employed ones. It was held
that the people who actually had done the
work alone were liable.

Cases in Favour of the Plainti!:

1. Smith V Kenrick [xii]:
It was held that though if no negligence is
there on the part of defendant in causing
damage to the property but if the injury was
occasioned by something which was not
ordinary or natural use of the land then, the
defendant shall be held liable for the
damages.

2. Baird
Baird VV Williamson
Williamson [xiii]:
[xiii]:
In this case the parties were neighbours and
used to work on adjacent mines. The
defendant raised his mine's water to a
higher level via pumping, as a result of which
the water flooded into the plainti!'s mine
and caused severe damage. It was held that
though the defendant was not negligent in
performance of the Act, he was liable as it
was in consequence of his act whether
skilfully or unskilfully performed, that the
damage has been caused.

3. Hodgkinson
Hodgkinson VV Ennor
Ennor [xiv]:
[xiv]:
In this case, the defendant had polluted a
stream by works on his own land which
though were not illegal, were not the natural
mode of working of the property and
produced a mischief to his neighbour. The
Court held that the defendant was liable and
placed reliance on the maxim "SIo utere two
ut alinum non laedas" i.e. one must use his
property so as not to injure the lawful rights
of another. The property owner may put his
land to any use as long as he does not
deprive the adjoining land owner of any right
of enjoyment of his property. If he infringes
any legal right of the latter then the former
shall take responsibility for it.

4. Lambert
Lambert VV Bessey
Bessey [xv]:
[xv]:
In this case the ratio which the court
developed was that "if a man doeth a lawful
act, yet if injury to another ariseth from it,
the man who does the ach shall be
answerable".

Conclusion
Conclusion
The landmark judgment of Rylands V Fletcher
played a vital role in law of torts. The rule of strict
liability propounded in this case has been
instrumental in solving many disputes where the
damage is caused without any negligence on part
of defendant. In this fast changing world where
industrialization and technological advancements
are taking place rapidly, it is necessary that the
owner who makes use of dangerous things shall
be made onerous to bear the responsibility of
every damage which that thing may cause.

The rule of strict liability helps us in achieving that

objective. It places an additional burden on the
owner to bear the responsibility of all catastrophes
that may be caused by the dangerous thing he has
bought. Moreover, it also ensures that every
owner exercise proper care in handling such
dangerous properties.

References:
References:
i. RK Bangia, Law of Torts 327 (Allahabad Law
Agency, Faridabad, 2021)
ii. Rylands V Fletcher available at:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110903100432998/
(last visited on February 10, 2022)
iii. Rickards V Lothiam, (1913) A.C. 263
iv. (1849) 2 Q.B. 281
v. (1876) 2 Ex. D.1
vi. (1871) L.R. 6 Ex. 217
vii. (1879) 4 Ex. D. 76
viii. (1894) 70 L.T. 547
ix. 7 C. B. 515.
x. 6 Bing. N.C.1.
xi. 3 M. & W. 220.
xii. Supra note 4
xiii. 15 C.B. (N.S.) 376
xiv. 4 B.&S. 229
xv. Pr.&Ag. 262

Law Article in India

Please Drop Your Comments

4 comments

Sort by Newest

Add a comment...

Prof-Pradeep Sharma
nice
Like · Reply · Mark as spam ·
1 · 1y

Tapan Kar
Brilient and much helpful
in understanding the
matter.
Like · Reply · Mark as spam ·
1 · 1y

Blind Mind
Great
Like · Reply · Mark as spam ·
29w

Frank Jacid
This is an interesting
article
Like · Reply · Mark as spam ·
15w

Facebook Comments Plugin

Ask
Ask AA Lawyers
Lawyers

You May Like

Regulatory Challenges Of On...

Res Gestae Under Section 6 ...

Balancing Business and Envi...

Absolute Liability in India...

India Needs More GIFT Citie...

Audio Trademarks: How To Re...

Legal Question & Answers

Powered by feedwind

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Delhi
Delhi
Kolkata
Kolkata
Chandigarh
Chandigarh
Siliguri
Siliguri
Allahabad
Durgapur
Lucknow
Jamshedpur
Gurgaon
Ranchi
Faridabad
Janjgir
Noida
Dimapur
Ghaziabad
Guwahati
Guwahati
Jalandhar
New Delhi
Agra
Ludhiana
Jodhpur
Jaipur
Amritsar

Chennai
Chennai
Mumbai
Mumbai
Bangalore
Bangalore
Pune
Pune
Hyderabad
Hyderabad
Nagpur
Visakhapatnam
Belgaum
Cochin
Cochin
Jalgaon
Coimbatore
Nashik
Pondicherry
Ahmedabad
Ahmedabad
Trivandrum
Surat
Eluru
Indore
Vapi
Khandwa
Bengaluru
Rajkot

Online
Online Copyright
Copyright Registration
Registration

LawArticles

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual

Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a
D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage

(Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of

others as one scrolls through a Facebook news
...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...