Rylands v Fletcher Rule

In torts cases, the general rule is that the person who causes damage to another person either
intentionally or via his negligence shall pay damages to the affected party. This rule, however, if
followed strictly leads to many problems.
The Rylands v Fletcher rule is a legal principle that states that a person who brings onto his land
something likely to do mischief if it escapes, is strictly liable for any damage caused by its escape.
This means that the person is liable even if they have taken all reasonable care to prevent the escape.
Facts of the Case
The defendant, Rylands constructed a reservoir over his land to provide water to his mill via
independent contractors. There were some old disused shafts under the reservoir which the contractors
overlooked. 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 neighboring land. Though there
was no negligence on the part of the defendant, Rylands, the plaintiff, Fletcher sued the defendant for
damages.

Issues:
1. Whether there was any nuisance or not?
2. Was the use of Defendant's land unreasonable and thus was he to be held liable for damages
incurred by Plaintiff?
Judgment
Court of Liverpool
The Court of Liverpool gave its judgment in favor 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 favor 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.

Court of Exchequer of Pleas

The case afterward went to the Exchequer of Appeals for a hearing.

The Court heard this case on two issues:

1. Whether the defendants were liable for the actions of the contractors
2. Whether the defendants were liable for the damage regardless of their lack of negligence
The Court unanimously decided that the defendant was not liable for the actions of contractors but
had mixed views on the second issue. While Pollock CB J. and Martin B J. held that the defendants
were not liable as there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, Bramwell B. J. held that the
defendant was liable as the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water and
it was the defendant's act (i.e. act of building reservoir) which actually caused flooding of water on
claimant's land and thus held the defendant liable for trespass and nuisance.

Court of Exchequer Chamber

Aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Exchequer of Pleas, Fletcher appealed to the Exchequer
Chamber composed of six judges. The judges overturned the decision of the Court of Exchequer of
Pleas. It was in this Court that the rule of Strict liability was first time propounded.
Blackburn J. discussed on behalf of all Judges and stated that:
“We think that the rule of law is, that the person who for his purpose brings on his lands 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. He can
excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the
escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is
unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.”
Thus, the rule of strict liability was laid: if a person bought any dangerous thing on his premises and if
that thing escaped and caused damage, then the person would be held liable for all the damage it has
caused regardless of his negligence, knowledge, or intention. The Court, however, also provided
certain exceptions where this rule won't be applied i.e. Act of God, Plaintiff's default. But as none of
these exceptions are there in the Rylands v/s Fletcher case, the Court held Ryland liable for the
damage caused to Fletcher.

House of Lords
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, Rylands went for appeal in the
House of Lords. The House of Lords dismissed the appeal but went further to explain the rule of strict
liability more granulous and put some limitations on the rule of strict liability. The Court held that for
the applicability of the rule of strict liability, the land from which escape occurs must have been
modified in a way that would be considered non-natural, unusual, or inappropriate[ii]. Thus,
"Nonnatural use of land" was made essential for the applicability of the rule of strict liability.

Current Status of Rule of Strict Liability

Through Rylands v/s Fletcher and many other later cases, various developments took place regarding
the rule of strict liability. While certain exceptions like the Act of the third party and Statutory
authority were added to the rule, the pivotal conditions for the applicability of the rule were also
clarified by Courts. The essentials for the applicability of the rule of strict liability can be summarised
as follows:
1. Presence of Dangerous things:
The first essential requirement for the applicability of the rule laid down in Ryland V Fletcher
is the presence of a dangerous thing. A person can be made liable only if the thing which he
had collected or had bought was dangerous. What is dangerous may depend on the facts and
circumstances of the case. Some of the examples of dangerous things are poisonous trees,
explosives, noxious fumes, rusty wire, etc.
2. Escape:
Another requirement for the applicability of strict liability rule is the escape of dangerous
things bought by the defendant. "The thing must escape to the area outside the occupation and
control of the defendant." If the thing did not escape and damage is still caused, the defendant
then can't be held liable. For instance, if you bought an explosive material for doing some
experiment in your home. While experimenting, the explosive material exploded and injured
your co-worker working with you. Here, you can't be held liable under the rule of strict
liability as there is no escape from the things outside your premises.
3. Nonnatural use of land:
The last requirement for the applicability of the rule of strict liability is that the dangerous
thing was brought into the purview of non-natural use of land. For the use to be nonnatural it
"must be some special use bringing with it increased danger to others, and must not merely by
the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community"
For instance, if you grow a tree on your land, it is a natural use of land but if you grow a
 poisonous tree on your land, it is a non-natural use of land as it brings with itself an increased
danger to others.
Exceptions
However, in Ryland v/s Fletcher, certain exceptions were also stated in which the rule of strict liability
cannot be applied. Many other exceptions were also added in later cases.

The exceptions to the rule of strict liability can be summarised as follows:

1. Plaintiff's default:
If the damage is caused by the plaintiff's default or wrongdoing then the rule of strict liability
can't be applied. For instance, in Ponting V Noakes[iv], the plaintiff's horse itself intruded on
the defendant's property and ate poisonous leaves. The Court held that the damage was caused
by the plaintiff's fault as he let his horse intrude into the property of the defendant (either
purposely or via negligence). Had the horse not intruded into the property of the plaintiff, the
damage would not have been caused. Hence, the court held that in this case, the plaintiff
didn't have any right to complain.

2. Act of God:
The term "Act of God' has been defined by Blackburn J. in Rylands V Fletcher. According to
him "Circumstances which no human foresight can provide against, and of which human
prudence is not bound to recognize the possibility" are called Acts of God. The same can be
understood via reference to Nichols V Marsland[v], in which the defendant created artificial
lakes on his land. But that year, there happened to be an extraordinary rainfall, the highest in
human memory, as a result of which embankments of lakes gave away and damaged the
plaintiff's four bridges. The Court held that the defendant was not guilty as it was an act of
god as it was unforeseen and had happened because of supernatural forces without any human
intervention.

3. Consent of the Plaintiff:

According to this exception, if the plaintiff has consented to the accumulation of dangerous
things on the defendant's land, then the plaintiff does not have any right of complaint and the
rule of strict liability could not be applied. It's similar to the rule of volenti nonfit injuria. The
consent of the plaintiff can be express or implied. The consent is expressed when the plaintiff
assertively gives his consent. For example, A and B live in the same house.
A wants to plant a poisonous tree in the house for research purposes and asks B if he is OK
with that. B agrees. Here, the consent given is express. On the other hand, consent can also be
implied. Strictly talking of strict liability, consent is implied when the source of danger is for
the 'common benefit' of both plaintiff and defendant. For instance, in Carstairs V Taylor[vi],
the plaintiff hired the ground floor of the defendant's house on rent.
There happened to be a water tank on the roof for the supply of water. One day, the water
from the tank leaked and damaged the plaintiff's goods. It was held that the defendants can't
be held liable as the plaintiff impliedly had consented to the accumulation of dangerous things
(as the thing was installed for the common benefit of both plaintiff and defendant).

4. Act of the third party:

If the damages have been caused by the act of a third party or stranger over whom the
defendant has no control, then the rule of strict liability can't be applied. For instance, in Box
V Jubb[vii], some strangers blocked the drain of the defendant's reservoir as a result of which
the reservoir overflowed and damaged the plaintiff's property. The Court held that the
 defendant could not be held liable as the damage had been caused by the act of a stranger.
It must be noted that if the act of a stranger can be foreseen and prevented by the defendant,
then the defendant must stop it. Failure on the part of the defendant to do so would make him
liable.

5. Statutory Authority:
If the damage has been caused by an act which the legislature authorizes then; the rule of
strict liability can't be applied. For example. If a railway line is constructed by a Statute and
some damage is caused by it, then the person can't use the rule of strict liability. In Green V
Chelsea Waterworks Co[viii], the defendant company had a statutory duty to maintain a
continuous supply of water. A man belonging to the Company burst without any negligence
on his part, as a consequence of which the plaintiff's premises were flooded with water. It was
held that the company was not liable as the company was engaged in performing a statutory
duty.

impact of the Rylands v Fletcher Rule

The Rylands v Fletcher rule has profoundly impacted the development of tort law. It has provided a
framework for imposing liability in cases where dangerous substances or activities pose a risk to
others. While the rule has been subject to various interpretations and refinements over the years, it
remains a cornerstone of the law of negligence.

Important Cases Cited Cases in favor of the defendant

1. Smith v/s Kenrick [ix]:
In this case, the plaintiff and defendant used to mine on the adjacent land. The defendant dug
holes in the ordinary course of mining as a result of which, the water flowed from the
defendant's mine into the plaintiff's mine by gravitation and caused damage. It was held that
the defendant was not liable as "each owner had a right to work in his mine in the best way
for his benefit and if he did so without negligence, he was not liable to others for prejudice to
his property which might thereby arise.

2. Chadwick v/s Trover [x]:

In this case, a man pulled down his wall without giving notice to his neighbor (as he was not
legally bound to do so) and thereby caused damage to the latter's underground wall which the
defendant did not know. It was held that the man was not liable as there was no knowledge
present on his part that by doing so he would cause damage to the other party.

3. Partridge v/s Seott [xi]:

In this case, the defendant employed some competent persons to perform a lawful act. But
some damage to the plaintiff due to the negligence of the employed ones. It was held that the
people who had done the work alone were liable.

Cases in Favour of the Plaintiff:

1. Smith V Kenrick [xii]:
It was held that though if no negligence is there on the part of the defendant in causing
damage to the property but if the injury was occasioned by something which was not ordinary
 or natural use of the land then, the defendant shall be held liable for the damages.

2. Baird V Williamson [xiii]:

In this case, the parties were neighbors and used to work on adjacent mines. The defendant
raised his mine's water to a higher level via pumping, as a result of which the water flooded
into the plaintiff's mine and caused severe damage. It was held that though the defendant was
not negligent in the performance of the Act, he was liable as it was in consequence of his act
whether skilfully or unskilfully performed, that the damage has been caused.

3. Hodgkinson V Ennor [xiv]:

In this case, the defendant had polluted a stream by working on his land which though not
illegal, was not the natural mode of working on the property, and produced mischief to his
neighbour. The Court held that the defendant was liable and placed reliance on the maxim
"SIo utere two ut alinum non laedas" i.e. one must use his property so as not to injure the
lawful rights of another. The property owner may put his land to any use as long as he does
not deprive the adjoining land owner of any right of enjoyment of his property. If he infringes
any legal right of the latter then the former shall take responsibility for it.

4. Lambert V Bessey [xv]:

In this case, the ratio that the court developed was that "if a man doeth a lawful act, yet if the
injury to another ariseth from it, the man who does the act shall be answerable".

Application in India

The Rylands v Fletcher rule has been adopted and adopted in Indian law. The Supreme Court of India
has recognized the rule and applied it in various cases. However, the Indian courts have also
emphasized the need to balance the interests of landowners and those who may be affected by their
activities. In India, the rule has been applied in cases involving the escape of water, chemicals, and
other substances from industrial facilities, as well as in cases involving the collapse of buildings and
other structures. However, the courts have also been mindful of the need to avoid imposing undue
burdens on landowners, particularly in developing countries where industrialization is essential for
economic growth.

Conclusion
The landmark judgment of Rylands V Fletcher played a vital role in the law of torts. The rule of strict
liability propounded in this case has been instrumental in solving many disputes where the damage is
caused without any negligence on the part of the defendant. In this fast-changing world where
industrialization and technological advancements are taking place rapidly, the owner who makes use
of dangerous things must be made onerous to bear the responsibility for every damage which that
thing may cause.

The rule of strict liability helps us in achieving that objective. It places an additional burden on the
owner to bear the responsibility for all catastrophes that may be caused by the dangerous thing he has
bought. Moreover, it also ensures that every owner exercises proper care in handling such dangerous
properties.