Tortious liability under Rylands v Fletcher

Liability under Rylands v Fletcher is now regarded as a particular type of nuisance. It is a form of strict liability, in that the defendant may be liable in the absence of any negligent conduct on their part. Imposing liability without proof of negligence is controversial and therefore a restrictive approach has been taken with regards to liability under Rylands v Fletcher. There have been attempts to do away with liability under Rylands v Fletcher but the House of Lords have retained it.

Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 Case summary

Requirements

1. Accumulation on the defendant's land

2. A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes

3. Escape

4. Non-natural use of land

5. The damage must not be too remote

1. Accumulation

The defendant must bring the hazardous material on to his land and keep it there. If the thing is already on the land or is there naturally, no liability will arise under Rylands v Fletcher:

Giles v Walker [1890] 24 QBD 656 Case summary

Pontardawe RDC v Moore-Gwyn [1929] 1 Ch 656 Case summary

Carstairs v Taylor (1871) LR 6 Ex 217 Case summary

Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997) 81 BLR 101 Case summary

The thing must be accumulated for the defendant's own purposes:

Dunne v North West Gas Board [1964] 2 QB 806 Case summary

Pearson v North Western Gas Board [1968] 2 All ER 669 Case summary

The thing that escapes need not be the thing accumulated:

Miles v Forest Rock Granite (1918) 34 TLR 500 Case summary

2. A thing likely to do mischief

The thing need not be inherently hazardous, it need only be a thing likely to cause damage if it escapes:

Hale v Jennings Bros [1938] 1 All ER 579 Case summary

Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John [1936] 1 All ER 557 Case summary

3. Escape

There must be an escape from the defendant's land. An injury inflicted by the accumulation of a hazardous substance on the land itself will not invoke liability under Rylands v Fletcher:

Ponting v Noakes (1849) 2 QB 281 Case Summary

Read v Lyons [1947] AC 146 Case summary Youtube clip

The courts have not always strictly applied this requirement:

Hale v Jennings Bros [1938] 1 All ER 579 Case summary

Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John [1936] 1 All ER 557 Case summary

4. Non-natural use

Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263 Case summary

Transco v Stockport MBC [2004] 1 All ER 589 Case summary

Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997) 81 BLR 101 Case summary

An open fire in a domestic fire grate does not constitute a non-natural use of land:

Sochacki v Sas [1947] All ER 344 Case summary

5. Remoteness of damage

Liability in Rylands v Fletcher is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage. This point was established in the Cambridge Water case:

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264 Case summary

There is no liability for economic loss under Rylands v Fletcher:

Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966] 1 QB 569 Case summary

Defences

Act of stranger

If the escape was caused by the act of a stranger over which the defendant has no control, the defendant will escape liability:

Box v Jubb LR 4 Ex Div 76 Case summary

Perry v Kendricks Transport Limited [1956] 1 ALL ER 154 Case summary

If however, the act which caused the escape was committed by a person over whom the defendant may exercise some control the defendant may still be liable:

Ribee v Norrie [2000] EWCA Civ 275 Case summary

Wrongful act of a third party

Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263 Case summary

LMS International v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Ltd [2005] EWHC 2065 Case summary

Act of God

Carstairs v Taylor (1871) LR 6 Ex 217 Case summary

Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 Ex D 1 Case summary

Statutory authority

Charing Cross Electric Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772 Case summary

Smeaton v Ilford Corporation [1954] Ch 450 Case summary

Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) 70 LT 547 Case summary

Consent/benefit