THE RYLAND’S VS.

FLETCHER
CASE

Group 5

Georgia Tate Mario Hylton

Shawna Gray Jennilyn Burrell
Yanique Brent-Harris Nicoy Smith
Ewan Reno
WHAT IS A TORT

A civil wrong for which a remedy may be

obtained. Basically a tort is something someone
else did wrong that caused you injury and for
which you can sue. A tort can be intentional but
is far more likely to result from carelessness
called Negligence.
TYPES OF TORT
 Nuisance – Public or Private

 Negligence

 Trespass
 THE CASE

The defendants, mill owners in the coal mining area of

Lancashire, had constructed a reservoir on their land. The

water broke through the filled-in shaft of an abandoned

coal mine and flooded connecting passageways into the

plaintiff's active mine nearby. In 1865, the trial court found

that the defendants were ignorant of the abandoned mine

shaft and free of Negligence and decided the case in favor of

the defendants.
THE CASE
In 1866, in appeal by the plaintiffs, the Exchequer
Chamber decided to reverse the lower court and
imposed strict liability on the defendants, but the
case did not readily fit within the existing TORT
theories. No Trespass had occurred since the
premises of plaintiff and defendants did not adjoin;
therefore, the flooding was not direct, nor was it a
Nuisance, since there was nothing offensive to the
senses and the damage was not continuous or
recurring.
THE CASE CONT’D
Justice Colin Blackburn, comparing the situation
to trespasses involving cattle and dangerous
animals, declared. The true Rule of Law is, that
the person who for his own purposes brings on
his lands and collects 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.
FORESEEABILITY
 There is now a further requirement, according to
the House of Lords, that harm of the relevant
type must have been foreseeable
RULING BY THE HOUSE OF LORDS

The person who for his own purposes bring on his

own land and collects and keep there anything
likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at
his own peril and if he does not do so is
answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape.
RULING CONT’D

 Rylands sued on the grounds of Fletcher’s

negligence. Fletcher himself had not been
negligent as he had no knowledge of the existence
of the shafts. He was not vicariously liable for the
actions of the contractors as they were not his
employees.
oThe case eventually went to the House of Lords on appeal who
upheld the original judgment that Fletcher was liable in tort.

oDuring the appeal Lord Cairns, in agreeing with the above

statement, added the qualification that the rule only applied to a
“non-natural” use of the land, and not to circumstances where a
substance accumulated naturally on land. The word “natural” has
since been extended to mean “ordinary”.
(http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20q%20r%20s%20t/Ryl
ands_v_Fletcher.htm)
REMEDIES – THE OWNER OF LAND CLOSE TO
THE ESCAPE CAN RECOVER DAMAGES FOR:

 1. Physical harm to the land itself (as in Rylands

v Fletcher) and to the other property.

 2. It is no longer clear if a claimant can recover

for personal injury
DEFENCES
 Common Benefit – If the source of the danger was
maintained for the benefit of both the
claimant and defendant, the defendant
will not be liable for its escape
 Statutory Authority – A statute require a person or body to
carry out a particular activity.
Liability of Ryland v Fletcher may be
excluded upon interpretation of the
statute
 Default of a claimant – If the escape is the fault of the
claimant there will be no
liability. Alternatively, there
may be contributory negligence
on the part of the claimant
 Act of God
 Act of a stranger
 Consent of plaintiff
 OTHER CASES WHICH HAVE USED RYLANDS
V FLETCHER

 Defence – does not depend on ownership of land, covers a

variety of offensive and dangerous substances

 Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co v Hydraulic Power

Co (1914)
 The defendants water mains under a public street burst
and damaged the claimants cable which were also laid
under the street

 Held- the defendant was liable under the rule in Rylands

v Fletcher, because the rule was not confined to wrongs
between owners of adjacent land and did not depend on
ownership of land. Here it could be applied to adjacent
chattels
 DEFENSE – ACT OF GOD
 Greenock Corporation v Caledonian Railway Co (1917)
 The Corporation in laying out a park, constructed a
concrete paddling pool for children in the bed of a
stream, thereby altering its course and natural flow.
 Owing to rainfall of extraordinary violence the stream
overflowed and flooded the railway company’s premises.
 Held- The House of Lords held that this was an act of
God based on Nicholas v Marsland (1876) which held
that the point at issue was the liability for storing water
in artificial lakes, the point here was interference with
the natural flow

 Anyone so interfering must provide even against

exceptional rainfall
CONCLUSION
The dispute in Rylands vs. Fletcher case concerned escape of

water onto neighbouring land. Later cases in which the

Rylands test was applied involved the escape of all manner of

wastes and materials, extending outwards to a broad range of

inherently dangerous activities considered essential to

modern life. The application and interpretation of the

Rylands rule has been an important step in the development

of legal policy relating to modern industry, risk allocation,

liability and negligence.