Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher requires an escape from land under the defendant's control to a place outside it.
Facts
During the Second World War, Mrs Read was working as an inspector at a munitions factory operated by Lyons for the government. A shell exploded in the factory, injuring her. There was no evidence of negligence. She sued Lyons, relying on the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, because high explosive shells were dangerous things.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Lyons was not liable. Viscount Simon said that the rule in Rylands v Fletcher requires an escape, meaning an escape from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control. There had been no escape, because Mrs Read was injured on the premises. Lord Macmillan also doubted whether the rule applied to personal injuries.
Related cases on nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher
- Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169
- Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264
- Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316
- Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13, [2014] AC 822
- Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4, [2024] AC 1
- Hollywood Silver Fox Farm Ltd v Emmett [1936] 2 KB 468
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655
- Kennaway v Thompson [1981] QB 88
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
