Rylands v Fletcher
A person who brings onto his land something likely to do mischief if it escapes, in the course of a non natural use of the land, is strictly liable for the damage caused if it escapes.
Facts
Mr Rylands, a mill owner, employed independent contractors to build a reservoir on his land to supply water to his mill. Under the land there were disused mine shafts, which the contractors negligently failed to block up. When the reservoir was filled, the water burst through the old shafts and flooded Mr Fletcher's coal mine on neighbouring land. Mr Rylands himself had not been negligent.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Mr Rylands was liable. Blackburn J, in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, had said 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. Lord Cairns LC, in the House of Lords, added that the rule applied to a non natural use of the land. Liability is strict, so it does not depend on negligence.
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.
