On this page
Education Hub / SQE2 / Practice Areas/

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Topic

The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher establishes a principle of strict liability in tort law. It holds landowners and occupiers liable for damages caused by the escape of hazardous substances from their property. The doctrine originated from the 1868 case Rylands v Fletcher, where the House of Lords held that a person who brings and keeps anything likely to cause mischief if it escapes must keep it at their peril. If the substance escapes and causes damage, the owner is liable regardless of fault.

Key Elements of the Rule

The application of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher requires several specific elements to be established:

  • ★ Non-Natural Use of Land: The use of the land must be non-natural, meaning that it is not ordinary or common. Activities that are considered unusual or have a heightened risk of danger, such as storing large quantities of water, chemicals, or explosives, are generally classified as non-natural.
  • ★ Accumulation: The defendant must bring onto their land something likely to cause damage if it escapes. This includes hazardous substances or materials that are not naturally present on the land.
  • ★ Escape: There must be an actual escape of the substance from the defendant's land to another's, causing damage. The term "escape" refers to the movement of the substance beyond the control of the defendant.
  • ★ Damage: The claimant must suffer damage or loss as a result of the escape. This can include physical damage to property, personal injury, or economic loss.
  • ★ Foreseeability: The damage caused by the escape must be of a kind that was foreseeable. The defendant is liable only for the types of harm that could reasonably have been anticipated from the escape of the substance.

Defences to a Claim under Rylands v Fletcher

Several defences can be raised against a claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which can limit or negate liability:

  • ★ Act of God: The defendant may avoid liability if the escape was caused by a natural event that was unforeseeable and beyond human control, such as an extreme storm or earthquake.
  • ★ Act of a Third Party: If the escape was caused by the malicious or negligent act of a third party over whom the defendant had no control, this may serve as a defence.
  • ★ Consent of the Claimant: If the claimant consented to the presence of the hazardous substance or activity, the defendant may not be liable. This defence requires clear evidence of the claimant's informed consent.
  • ★ Statutory Authority: If the activity causing the escape was authorized by statute and conducted without negligence, the defendant might be protected from liability.
  • ★ Contributory Negligence: If the claimant's actions contributed to the escape or exacerbated the damage, the compensation awarded may be reduced proportionally.

Case Law

Rylands v Fletcher (1868)

This foundational case involved a mill owner who constructed a reservoir on his land. The reservoir collapsed, flooding a neighbouring mine. The House of Lords held the mill owner strictly liable for the damage, establishing the principle that a person who brings a potentially dangerous substance onto their land is liable if it escapes and causes harm.

Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (2003)

In this case, a water pipe owned by the council burst, causing substantial damage. The House of Lords clarified that for a claim under Rylands v Fletcher, the use of land must be extraordinary and unusual, not a routine activity like water supply. The claim was unsuccessful as the water pipe was considered a natural use of land.

Examples

Example 1 - Chemical Spill

Scenario:

A factory stores a large quantity of hazardous chemicals on its premises. Due to a containment failure, the chemicals leak into the surrounding environment, causing damage to nearby properties and water supplies. The factory owner may be held liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for the escape and resulting harm.

Example 2 - Escaping Water

Scenario:

A homeowner installs a large water tank on their property. Due to poor maintenance, the tank bursts, flooding a neighbour's home. The homeowner may be liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, as the water constitutes a non-natural use of the land, and its escape caused foreseeable damage.

Conclusion

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher provides a basis for strict liability in cases where dangerous substances escape from a property and cause harm. This doctrine emphasizes the responsibility of landowners to prevent the escape of potentially harmful substances, regardless of negligence. While the rule has been refined over time, particularly concerning what constitutes non-natural use of land, it remains a critical component of tort law in addressing environmental and property damage.

Public and private nuisance Remedies (damages and injunctions) and defences
27

53

SQE2

Specification

Explore