Final Reyland

RYLANDS V FLETCHER
UKHL 1, L.R. 3 H.L. 330

DATE OF JUDGEMENT- JULY 17, 1868
JUDGES: LORD CAIRNS AND LORD CRANWORTH
FACTS OF THE CASE

The defendant, Rylands constructed a reservoir over his land for providing water
to his mill via independent contractors. There were some old disused shafts under
the reservoir which the contractors failed to notice. As a result these shafts
remained unblocked. When the water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through
the shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines on the neighbouring land. Though
there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, Rylands, the plaintiff,
Fletcher sued the defendant for damages
ISSUES INVOLVED IN CASE
1. Whether there was any nuisance or not?
2. Was the Defendant negligible?
3. Was the use of Defendant’s land unreasonable and thus was he to be held
liable for damages incurred by Plaintiff?
JUDGEMENT
THE COURT OF LIVERPOOL
The Court of Liverpool gave its judgement in the favour of the defendant holding
that there was neither any trespass (as the flooding was not direct and
immediate) nor any nuisance (as the flooding was not a continuous event, it is a
one-off event). Later, in December 1864, via a Court order, an arbitrator was
appointed for the case. The arbitrator too decided in favour of the defendant by
stating that the defendant had no way of knowing about the mine shafts so he
could not be held liable. The arbitrators, however, held the contractors liable for
their negligence.
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS
The case then went to the Exchequer of Pleas, where it was heard between
3rd and 5th May 1865. It was heard on two points:
o Whether the defendants were liable for the actions of the contractors and
o Whether the defendants were responsible for the damage regardless of
their lack of negligence.
They decided for the first point that the defendants were not liable, but they had
a diverse opinion on the second point. Channell B recused. Pollock CB and Martin
B held that the defendants were not liable, as since a negligence claim couldn’t
be brought, there was no valid case. Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the
claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water that came
from defendant's reservoir, and so as a result the defendant was guilty of both
trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. He stated that “the general law,
wholly independent of contract” should be that the defendants were liable, “on
the simple ground that the defendants have caused water to flow into the
[claimant]’s mines, which but for their actions wouldn’t have gone there…”
COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
Fletcher was angered by the decision of the three exchequer judges and appealed
to the exchequer chamber composed of six judges. The six judges “overturned the
previous decision”. Fletcher. Blackburn J spoke on the behalf of all the judges and
said that “we, the judges of the exchequer think that correct rule of law is that,
any person, who for his own intentions brings on his land anything, accumulates
and keeps on the land that thing, which is likely to cause trouble if it escapes,
must keep it at his own risk, and, if he doesn’t do so, is clear (without need for
further information), in charge of all the damage which is that the natural effect
of its escape.” Blackburn J further said that that person can excuse himself from
the liability by taking certain defences like – that the escape was caused because
of the plaintiff’s default; or by proving that the escape was a consequence of the
act of God” (Fordham Margaret1995)
The judges concluded that “none of these excuses had been proven in the case”,
and it was, therefore “unnecessary to find out what another excuse would be
sufficient”. The judges, in the judgement, relied on the “basis of the liability for
damages of land through the tort of chattel of trespass, the tort of nuisance”, as
well as “the scienter action (common law rule that deals with the damages
directly done by animals to human beings)” (Duhame.org, 2009).
The court of Exchequer Chamber provided a rule when the liability of an owner,
who has brought any dangerous in his premises can arise. At the same time, the
court also discussed certain defences which can absolve the liability.
The court of Exchequer Chamber held Rylands liable for the damage done to the
Fletcher. The court held that the defendants owed a duty of care towards the risk,
as they were aware of the fact that if that quantity of water would escape, it would
be harmful. There was a want of care by the defendants, as they were doing
unnatural use of their land by storing that huge quantity of water. Though it was
not harmful that time, but would be harmful if escapes.
Rylands felt that this was not just. He appealed to the House of Lords.
HOUSE OF LORDS
The House of Lords dismissed Ryland’s appeal. They agreed with the six exchequer
judges but went further to feature a limitation on the liability.
DECISION
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and agreed with the six Exchequer
judges. Lord Cairns, while speaking for the House of Lords, stated their agreement
of the rule stated above by Justice Blackburn in the court of Exchequer Chamber
but included a further limitation on liability. The one more requirement is that the
land from which the escape occurs must have been modified in a way which
would be considered non-natural, unusual or inappropriate. The decision of
House of Lords added a requirement that the use be ‘non-natural’. The judgement
of this case was delivered on 17 July. In this the court consisted of only two
judges, Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth; Lord Colonsay didn’t attend the case.
LEGAL REASONING
A 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.
The rule to be applied is, “when one person in managing his own affairs causes,
however innocently, damage to another, it is obviously only just that he should be
the party to suffer.”
The court judgment was affirmed, stating in essence that the Defendant’s use of
the land was unreasonable, engaged in without proper caution, and resulted in
harm to the Plaintiff. The Rylands court considers the manner in which the
Defendant used the land and concluded such use was “non-natural”.
CONCLUSION
Ryland v. Fletcher is a famous English case that established the ‘Rule of Strict
Liability’ in the field of law of torts. Mr. Ryland claimed that because he employed
an independent contractor, he had no control over their behavior. He is not
accountable for an independent contractor’s error.
However, Rylands was found accountable for the damage done to the Fletcher by
the Exchequer Chamber court. The defendants owed a duty of care to the risk,
according to the court, because they were aware that if that amount of water
leaked, it would be dangerous. The defendants showed a lack of care by holding
such a large amount of water on their farm, which was an unnatural use of their
land. Though it was not dangerous at the moment, it would be dangerous if it
escaped.

Final Reyland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Reyland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Reyland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RYLANDS V FLETCHER

UKHL 1, L.R. 3 H.L. 330

FACTS OF THE CASE

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.