Rylands V Fletcher
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Rylands v Fletcher'' (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the
House of Lords The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the lower house, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England. One of the oldest ext ...
which established a new area of
English tort law English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than English criminal law, crimi ...
. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.Bohlen (1911) 300 Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir on his land. As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage (). Fletcher brought a claim under
negligence Negligence ( Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances. Within the scope of tort law, negligence pertains to harm caused by the violation of a duty of care through a neg ...
against Rylands. At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Baron Bramwell, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in ''Rylands v Fletcher''". This doctrine was further developed by English courts, and made an immediate impact on the law. Prior to ''Rylands'', English courts had not based their decisions in similar cases on
strict liability In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Und ...
, and had focused on the intention behind the actions rather than the nature of the actions themselves. In contrast, ''Rylands'' imposed strict liability on those found detrimental in such a fashion without having to prove a duty of care or negligence, which brought the law into line with that relating to public reservoirs and marked a significant doctrinal shift. The rule in ''Rylands'' has both been distinguished with and regarded as a species of the tort of private nuisance and even construed as a "liability rule". Unlike ordinary cases of private nuisance, the rule in Rylands requires the escape of a thing that arises from a non-natural use rather than the typical interference emanating from unreasonable use of land. It additionally does not require an act to be continuous, which is typically a requirement for nuisance. Academics have criticised the rule both for the economic damage such a doctrine could cause and for its limited applicability. The tort of ''Rylands v Fletcher'' has been disclaimed in various jurisdictions, including Scotland, where it was described as "a heresy that ought to be extirpated", and Australia, where the High Court chose to destroy the doctrine in '' Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd''. Within England and Wales, however, ''Rylands'' remains valid law, although the decisions in '' Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc'' and ''
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher''. Facts National Grid plc, Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington ...
'' make it clear that it is no longer an independent tort, but instead a sub-tort of nuisance.


Facts

In 1860, Rylands paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land, intending that it should supply the Ainsworth Mill with water. Rylands played no active role in the construction, instead contracting out to a competent engineer. While building it, the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts and passages under the land filled loosely with soil and debris, which joined up with Thomas Fletcher's adjoining mine. Rather than blocking these shafts up, the contractors left them. On 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands' reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher's mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher pumped the water out, but on 17 April 1861 his pump burst, and the mine again began to flood. At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and the sunken coal shafts were discovered. Fletcher brought a claim against Rylands and the landowner, Jehu Horrocks, on 4 November 1861.


Judgment


Liverpool Assizes

The tort of trespass was inapplicable, as the flooding was deemed not to be "direct and immediate"; the tort of nuisance was rejected as this was a one-off event. The case was first heard by Judge John Mellor and a special jury in September 1862 at the Liverpool
Assizes The assizes (), or courts of assize, were periodic courts held around England and Wales until 1972, when together with the quarter sessions they were abolished by the Courts Act 1971 and replaced by a single permanent Crown Court. The assizes ex ...
; a court order led to an arbitrator from the
Exchequer of Pleas The Exchequer of Pleas, or Court of Exchequer, was a court that dealt with matters of equity (law), equity, a set of legal principles based on natural law and Common law#History, common law in England and Wales. Originally part of the , or King ...
being appointed in December 1864. The arbitrator decided that the contractors were liable for negligence, since they had known about the old mine shafts. Rylands, however, had no way of knowing about the mine shafts and so was not.


Exchequer of Pleas

The case then went to the Exchequer of Pleas, where it was heard between 3 and 5 May 1865. It was heard on two points: first, whether the defendants were liable for the actions of the contractors and secondly, whether the defendants were liable for the damage regardless of their lack of negligence. They decided for the first point that the defendants were not liable, but were split on the second point. Baron Channell recused. Chief Baron
Pollock Pollock or pollack (pronounced ) is the common name used for either of the two species of North Atlantic ocean, marine fish in the genus ''Pollachius''. ''Pollachius pollachius'' is referred to as "pollock" in North America, Ireland and the Unit ...
and Baron Samuel Martin held that the defendants were not liable, as since a negligence claim could not be brought there was no valid case. Baron Bramwell, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of 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 plain ground that the defendants have caused water to flow into the laimants mines, which but for their act would not have gone there..."


Court of Exchequer Chamber

Fletcher appealed to the Exchequer Chamber of six judges. The prior decision was overturned in his favour. Mr Justice Colin Blackburn spoke on behalf of all the judges and said that: Blackburn's opinion relied on the liability for damages to land available through the tort of chattel trespass and the tort of nuisance, as well as the '' in scienter action'', injury by a domesticated animal known to have a disposition to injure. Rylands appealed.


House of Lords

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and agreed with the determination for Fletcher.(1868) LR 3 HL 330 Lord Cairns, in speaking for the House of Lords, stated their agreement of the rule stated above by Mr Justice Blackburn, but added a further limitation on liability, which 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 case was then heard by the
House of Lords The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the lower house, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England. One of the oldest ext ...
on 6 and 7 July 1868, with a judgment delivered on 17 July. Oddly the court consisted of only two judges, Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth; Lord Colonsay failed to attend. The eventual judgment confirmed Blackburn's decision and general principle, adding a requirement that the use be "non-natural".Bermingham (2008) 248 The judgment of Lord Cairns was as follows.


Significance


Enjoyment of property

The 'enjoyment of land' was primary in the reasons of Lord Cairns (above). This foundation stone is a recurring theme in the common law throughout the ages, to wit: "It has been well said, that the use of the law consists, first, in preserving men's persons from death and violence; next, in securing to them the free enjoyment of their property." Tindal, CJ: Charge to the Grand Jury at Bristol on the occasion of the 1832 riots over the rejection in the
House of Lords The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the lower house, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England. One of the oldest ext ...
of the Reform Bill.


Change to the law

Early English common law had, in many instances, imposed liability on those who had caused harm regardless of wrongful intent or negligence. Trespass was considered a remedy for all tortious wrongs, and sometimes used as a synonym for torts generally. Over the centuries, however, judges focused more on the intent and negligence behind the actions than the nature of the actions themselves, leading to the development of
negligence Negligence ( Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances. Within the scope of tort law, negligence pertains to harm caused by the violation of a duty of care through a neg ...
and nuisance and the further development of trespass. At the time of ''Rylands'', the previous case relied upon was '' Vaughan v Menlove'', decided in the Court of Common Pleas in 1837. The case had almost identical facts to ''Rylands'', but
strict liability In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Und ...
was never even considered. The case is instead thought of as one of the best attempts of early 19th century English judges to build up the law of
negligence Negligence ( Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances. Within the scope of tort law, negligence pertains to harm caused by the violation of a duty of care through a neg ...
. The outcome of ''Rylands'' meant that judges would again impose strict liability on defendants who accumulated dangerous things on their land without any need to prove negligence or wrongful intent. The decision won support for bringing the law relating to private reservoirs up to standard with the law relating to public reservoirs, which contained similar statutory provisions thanks to a pair of private Acts of Parliament passed in 1853 and 1864.


Assessment

The decision in ''Rylands'' initially faced little criticism within
England and Wales England and Wales () is one of the Law of the United Kingdom#Legal jurisdictions, three legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. It covers the constituent countries England and Wales and was formed by the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542. Th ...
, although many American scholars and judges of the time felt that judgment was a poor one. Chief Justice Charles Doe of the
New Hampshire Supreme Court The New Hampshire Supreme Court is the state supreme court, supreme court of the U.S. state of New Hampshire and sole appellate court of the state. The Supreme Court is seated in the state capital, Concord, New Hampshire, Concord. The Court is ...
wrote that it "put a clog upon natural and reasonably necessary uses of matter and tend to embarrass and obstruct much of the work which it seems to be a man's duty carefully to do". The American interpretation was based primarily on the idea that it would cause economic harm. Further American criticism is based on the idea that it is poor law. Firstly, they argue, it is not trespass, since the damage is not direct, and secondly, it is not a nuisance, because there is no continuous action. Glofcheski, writing in the ''Hong Kong Law Journal'', notes that "the doctrine has not flourished... a tort imposing strict liability should be closely interpreted and circumspectly applied". It has been argued that the decision was never entirely accepted by the judiciary as a whole, and that it is difficult to justify. This is for two reasons; firstly, it is a case of very limited applicability, and it has been suggested that it be folded into a general principle of strict liability for "ultra-hazardous" activities. Secondly, subsequent case law in England and Wales, particularly in '' Rickards v Lothian'', has undermined the "non-natural use" element by introducing a cost/benefit analysis which severely limits the decision's usefulness.Cane (1994) 237


Canada

The first article in the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights states that "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law" is recognised. However it is difficult to adjudicate on this Bill, especially as the provinces have priority over property rights. A difficulty is encountered with the definition of "property", as remarked by Johansen,Johansen, "Property rights and the constitution"
/ref> which may well be the reason why the matter remains for interpretation by precedent. The 1974 test case for the Bill of Rights, '' Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell'', provided an impetus for the 1982 Charter of Rights, which specifically excludes the "enjoyment of property" for reasons described in the Constitutional history of Canada page. Fridman on Torts in Canada has helpful material. In
Ontario Ontario is the southernmost Provinces and territories of Canada, province of Canada. Located in Central Canada, Ontario is the Population of Canada by province and territory, country's most populous province. As of the 2021 Canadian census, it ...
, a
common law Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on prece ...
province, ''Rylands'' was upheld by a lower court in '' Smith v. Inco Ltd.'' a case alleging that a factory in Port Colborne, Ontario had contaminated adjacent lands with
nickel Nickel is a chemical element; it has symbol Ni and atomic number 28. It is a silvery-white lustrous metal with a slight golden tinge. Nickel is a hard and ductile transition metal. Pure nickel is chemically reactive, but large pieces are slo ...
. A subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in 2010 found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of economic harm, raising the
legal burden of proof In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts ...
but not invalidating ''Rylands'' as precedent law. However, it has been said that the Court of Appeal erred in law in their adjudication over the words "non-natural". In April 2012, the
Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; , ) is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants eac ...
chose not to hear the appeal. Mineral rights in the subsurface seem to be preferred over the landowner's rights by the Mineral Tenure Act or the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act in
British Columbia British Columbia is the westernmost Provinces and territories of Canada, province of Canada. Situated in the Pacific Northwest between the Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains, the province has a diverse geography, with rugged landscapes that ...
"War Brewing' over Mining Rights in Rural BC" Salcito, 14 Jun 2006, TheTyee.ca
/ref> (also a
common law Common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on prece ...
province) so that recourse to ''Rylands'' is quite limited, as case law has developed over liability "to compensate the owner of a surface area for loss or damage caused by the entry, occupation or use of that area" (MTA) and "compensation for nuisance and disturbance from the entry, occupation or use" (PNGA).Bepple v. Western Industrial Clay Products Ltd., 2004 BCCA 497 (CanLII)
/ref> The compensation for "entry, use and occupation of the Property" seems not to "exceed the entire axablevalue of the land" as written in the registry. This means in effect that the relocation costs (of, say, a farming operation, or an abode) or emotional damage are likely not payable by the expropriator. Even municipalities cannot exclude miners.Falkoski v. Osoyoos (Town of), 1998 CanLII 2817 (BC SC)
/ref> The powers of an arbitrator include compensation for land, timber and time, but expressly do not include watershed, health and welfare, or lost cattle."A Rancher's Radioactive Hell" The Tyee, 4 Jan 2007
/ref> Miners avoid environmental review; the province has no discretion to refuse mineral leases; miners need not notify landowners of transactions; the province can exempt mines from review when mining commences; and landowners do not have rights to refuse to negotiate."Company Grabs Mining Rights to Premier’s Land" 19 Apr 2005, TheTyee.ca
/ref> The impact of ''Rylands v Fletcher'' in Quebec law, which is based for historical reasons on the
civil code A civil code is a codification of private law relating to property law, property, family law, family, and law of obligations, obligations. A jurisdiction that has a civil code generally also has a code of civil procedure. In some jurisdiction ...
, was evaluated by the
Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; , ) is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants eac ...
in the 1916 case of '' Vandry et al. v. Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Co.'' The SCC found that a section in the
civil code A civil code is a codification of private law relating to property law, property, family law, family, and law of obligations, obligations. A jurisdiction that has a civil code generally also has a code of civil procedure. In some jurisdiction ...
had ample scope to support the liability of the Quebec Power Co. The rule in ''Rylands v Fletcher'' gives support to '' Ernst v. EnCana Corporation, 2013 ABQB 537''.


England and Wales


Developments

The party that can be sued in a ''Rylands'' claim is an owner or occupier of land, along with anyone who stores or collects the dangerous material, as in '' Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd''. 921All ER 48 The party suing was initially one with an interest in land, but '' Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd'' confirmed that an interest in land was not necessary to bring a claim. Historically, personal injury claims have been allowed, as in '' Hale v Jennings''. 9381 All ER 579 More recent cases, however, such as the
House of Lords The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the lower house, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England. One of the oldest ext ...
decision in ''
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher''. Facts National Grid plc, Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington ...
'', 003UKHL 61 have confirmed that ''Rylands'' is "a remedy for damage to land or interests in land. It must...follow that damages for personal injuries are not recoverable under the rule". In ''Cambridge Water'' Lord Goff opined that the rule in ''Rylands'' should not further be developed, and that rather than being an independent tort it should be instead considered a sub-tort of nuisance. Statutory provisions, such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990, were a more modern and appropriate way of addressing environmental problems which would previously have been covered by ''Rylands''. Subsequently, ''Transco'' disapproved of the Australian decision in '' Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd'' to absorb ''Rylands'' into the general law of
negligence Negligence ( Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances. Within the scope of tort law, negligence pertains to harm caused by the violation of a duty of care through a neg ...
, deciding that ''Rylands'' should continue to exist but, as Lord Bingham said, as a "sub-species of nuisance...while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose; and...restate it so as to achieve as much certainty and clarity as is attainable". It is now a sub-tort, rather than an independent tort; they have confirmed that it will be allowed to remain. Donal Nolan has argued that to consider ''Rylands'' as part of private nuisance is unsound. Private nuisance requires the claimant to have an interest in land, while ''Rylands'' does not; although exceptions to this rule have occasionally been made in private nuisance, in '' Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd'', the
House of Lords The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the lower house, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England. One of the oldest ext ...
ruled that to make exceptions would transform nuisance from a tort against land to a tort against the person, and should not be permitted. John Murphy, Professor of Common Law at the
University of Manchester The University of Manchester is a public university, public research university in Manchester, England. The main campus is south of Manchester city centre, Manchester City Centre on Wilmslow Road, Oxford Road. The University of Manchester is c ...
, agrees with Nolan, and makes the additional point that nuisance is focused on a loss of enjoyment to land, not physical damage as ''Rylands'' is. It has also been concerned that the reasonable use test, which appears in nuisance, is not applicable to cases brought under ''Rylands''.


Brings, collects and keeps

The first requirement under ''Rylands'' is that the defendant "for his own purposes brings onto land and collects and keeps there". In ''Rylands'', this was the keeping of water in a reservoir; other cases in England and Wales have illustrated what sort of material is considered. In '' British Celanese v AH Hunt'', the accumulation was of metal foil strips. "For his own purpose" is not understood to be "for his benefit", although that was what Blackburn was referring to at the time; in '' Smeaton v Ilford Corp'', ''Rylands'' was held to apply to a local authority accumulating sewage on its land, although there was no benefit to the local authority from doing this.


Mischief and escape

The next element of ''Rylands'' is that the thing be something "likely to do mischief if it escapes". Before ''
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher''. Facts National Grid plc, Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington ...
'' this did not have to be a dangerous item (see below); the risk was instead in its behaviour if it escapes. In ''Rylands'' the "thing" was water. Other examples are fire, as in '' Jones v Festiniog Railway'', gas, as in '' Batchellor v Tunbridge Wells Gas Co'', fumes, as in '' West v Bristol Tramways Co'', and electricity, as in '' Hillier v Air Ministry''. The extent of the "thing"'s accumulation can also be considered, as in '' Mason v Levy'', where it was not just the type of thing kept but the sheer amount which created the danger. It is essential for a ''Rylands'' claim that there be an escape of a dangerous thing "from a place where the defendant has occupation of or control over land to a place which is outside his occupation or control". In '' Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd'', an explosion in a munitions factory killed an inspector on the property. ''Rylands'' was held not to apply, because there was no escape. The dangerous thing that escapes does not always have to be the thing which was accumulated, but there must be a causal link. In '' Miles v Forest Rock Granite Co (Leicestershire) Ltd'', explosives stored on the defendant's land led to the escape of rocks in a blast, and the defendant was found liable. In ''
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher''. Facts National Grid plc, Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington ...
'', Lord Bingham stated ''obiter'' that "I do not think the mischief or danger test should be at all easily satisfied. It must be shown that the defendant has done something which he recognised, or judged by the standards appropriate at the relevant place and time, he ought reasonably to have recognised, as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there should be an escape, however unlikely an escape may have been thought to be."


Non-natural use

The requirement of "non-natural use", which was created when the case went to the
House of Lords The House of Lords is the upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Like the lower house, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, House of Commons, it meets in the Palace of Westminster in London, England. One of the oldest ext ...
, was described by Lord Moulton, in '' Rickards v Lothian'', as "some special use bringing with it increased danger to others". Because the idea of something being "non-natural" is a subjective one, the interpretation of this principle has varied over the years. In '' Musgrove v Pandelis'', a
car A car, or an automobile, is a motor vehicle with wheels. Most definitions of cars state that they run primarily on roads, seat one to eight people, have four wheels, and mainly transport people rather than cargo. There are around one billio ...
filled with petrol was considered "non-natural", while in '' Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd'', so was the operation of a munitions factory during war-time. There is no single concrete test to define what is "non-natural", for reasons given by Lord Bingham in ''
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher''. Facts National Grid plc, Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington ...
''; " on-natural useis not a test to be inflexibly applied: a use may be extraordinary and unusual at one time or in one place but not so at another time or in another place...I also doubt whether a test of reasonable user is helpful, since a user may well be quite out of the ordinary but not unreasonable"...


Defences

There are several defences in England and Wales to a claim under ''Rylands v Fletcher''; act of an unknown third party, contributory negligence, consent and statutory authority. An act of an unknown third party will absolve the defendant of liability, as in '' Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd''. In '' Northwestern Utilities Ltd v London Guarantee and Accident Co Ltd'', the principle was established that if a claimant knows of the unknown third party and their actions, the defendant is additionally likely to be able to deny liability. As ''Rylands'' requires
strict liability In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Und ...
, any contributory negligence voids most of the claim. Initially it was sufficient to offset the case itself; with the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, courts instead apportion damages, taking into account how much of the harm was contributed by the claimant. Nevertheless, contributory negligence is still a viable partial defence to a ''Rylands'' claim. Other valid defences are where the claimant has consented, expressly or impliedly, to the accumulation of the "thing", and where there is statutory authority for the accumulation.


Scotland

The principles of ''Rylands v Fletcher'' were initially applied in
Scots law Scots law () is the List of country legal systems, legal system of Scotland. It is a hybrid or mixed legal system containing Civil law (legal system), civil law and common law elements, that traces its roots to a number of different histori ...
, first in the case of '' Mackintosh v Mackintosh'', where a fire spreading from the defendant's land to the claimant's land caused property damage. Scots lawyers and judges applied ''Rylands'' differently from their English counterparts, however. While the rule is interpreted in
England and Wales England and Wales () is one of the Law of the United Kingdom#Legal jurisdictions, three legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. It covers the constituent countries England and Wales and was formed by the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542. Th ...
as being distinct from negligence and the rules of duty of care and liability applied there, the principle in Scotland was that "negligence is still the ground of liability. The only difference is that in such cases the proprietor is doing something upon his property which is in its nature dangerous and not necessary (or usual?) in the ordinary management of the particular kind of property, and he is therefore bound to observe a higher degree of diligence to prevent injury to his neighbour". The use of ''Rylands'' in Scots law, which was started in ''Mackintosh'', finally came to an end in '' RHM Bakeries v Strathclyde Regional Council''. Lord Fraser, as part of his judgment, stated that the idea of
strict liability In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Und ...
that was brought into play by ''Rylands'' was not a part of Scots law, and the idea that it ever had been valid was "a heresy that ought to be extirpated".Cameron (2004) 119


United States

Within the
United States The United States of America (USA), also known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a country primarily located in North America. It is a federal republic of 50 U.S. state, states and a federal capital district, Washington, D.C. The 48 ...
, there are many situations in which
strict liability In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Und ...
is applied to actions, and ''Rylands'' is commonly cited as the origin of that rule (particularly where strict liability is based on the defendant's " ultrahazardous activity"); it was first applied in '' Ball v. Nye'', by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The Supreme Court of Minnesota also adopted it in '' Cahill v. Eastman'', while the highest courts of New York,
New Hampshire New Hampshire ( ) is a U.S. state, state in the New England region of the Northeastern United States. It borders Massachusetts to the south, Vermont to the west, Maine and the Gulf of Maine to the east, and the Canadian province of Quebec t ...
and
New Jersey New Jersey is a U.S. state, state located in both the Mid-Atlantic States, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States, Northeastern regions of the United States. Located at the geographic hub of the urban area, heavily urbanized Northeas ...
all rejected the principle, in '' Losee v. Buchanan'', '' Brown v. Collins'', and '' Marshall v. Welwood'' respectively. The Supreme Court of New Jersey, however, reversed ''Welwood'' in 1983 in '' Department of Environmental Protection v. Ventron Corp''. Many courts in the
United States The United States of America (USA), also known as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a country primarily located in North America. It is a federal republic of 50 U.S. state, states and a federal capital district, Washington, D.C. The 48 ...
have attempted to use ''Rylands'' to justify absolute liability, which it was never intended to do; while absolute liability is where no defence is applicable, in ''Rylands'' itself Lord Cairns accepted that there were some situations where the case should not be applied.


Australia

In Australia, the principles of ''Rylands v Fletcher'' were "killed off" by the
High Court of Australia The High Court of Australia is the apex court of the Australian legal system. It exercises original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified in the Constitution of Australia and supplementary legislation. The High Court was establi ...
in '' Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd''. The High Court's view was that the ''Rylands'' principles "should now been seen ... as absorbed by the principles of ordinary negligence, and not as an independent principle of strict liability". Contrasting this, the principles have escaped destruction in
Hong Kong Hong Kong)., Legally Hong Kong, China in international treaties and organizations. is a special administrative region of China. With 7.5 million residents in a territory, Hong Kong is the fourth most densely populated region in the wor ...
, where the courts are yet to follow the examples set by Australia and England and Wales, and ''Rylands'' remains an independent tort.Glofcheski (2004) 194


India

The rule of strict liability famously laid down by Blackburn, in ''Rylands v. Fletcher'', proved to be rather ineffective with the passage of time to counter the dangerous use of one's property or an industry that produced substances or wastes detrimental to public health. The pre-requirements essential for establishing a liability under the principle of strict liability viz., the non-natural use of land, use of a dangerous thing, and the element of escape provided substantial loopholes to the enterprises to escape liability under the ''Rylands v. Fletcher'' rule. Moreover, the exceptions provided within the rule (and restated by the Supreme Court of India in ''MC Mehta v. Union of India'') afford ample opportunity to the commercial enterprises to escape liability. The Supreme Court of India in ''MC Mehta v. Union of India'' evolved a more stringent rule of strict liability than the ''Rylands v. Fletcher'' rule. In this case, which involved the leakage of and the harm caused by Oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram industries in Delhi, the court held that keeping in mind the needs and demands of a modern society with highly advanced scientific knowledge and technology where for the sake of development programme, it was necessary to carry out inherently dangerous or hazardous industry, a new rule had to be laid down to adequately deal with the problems arising in a highly industrialised economy. This new rule had to be based on the English rule of strict liability, but had to be even more stringent, as a result of which no firm carrying out an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity might escape from liability, irrespective of whether there was any negligence involved on the part of the firm or not. The court also pointed out that the duty owed by such an enterprise to the society is “absolute and non-delegable” and that the enterprise cannot escape liability by showing that it had taken all reasonable care and there was no negligence on its part. The bases of the new rule as indicated by the Supreme Court are two: # If an enterprise is permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident (including indemnification of all those who suffer harm in the accident) arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its overheads; and # The enterprise alone has the resource to discover and guard against hazards or danger and to provide warning against potential hazards. The rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher'' requires non-natural use of land by the defendant and escape of the thing from his land, which causes damage. But the rule in ''MC Mehta v. Union of India'' is not dependent upon any such condition. The necessary requirements for applicability of the new rule of absolute liability are that the defendant is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and that harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity. The rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher'' will not cover cases of harm to persons within the premises where the inherently dangerous activity is carried out, for the rule requires escape of the thing which causes harm from the premises. The new rule makes no distinction between the persons within the premises where the enterprise is operating and persons outside the premises because escape of the thing causing harm from the premises is not a necessary condition for the applicability of the rule. Further, the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher'', though strict in the sense that it is not dependent on any negligence on the part of the defendant and in this respect similar to the new rule, is not absolute as it is subject to many exceptions but the new rule in Mehta's case is not only strict but absolute and is subject to no exception. Another important point of distinction between the two rules is in the matter of award of damages. Damages awardable where the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher'' applies will be ordinary or compensatory; but in cases where the rule applicable is the one laid down in MC Mehta's case the court can allow exemplary damages, and the bigger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater can be the amount of compensation payable by it. A small bump in the road was encountered in ''Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India'' and doubts were expressed as to the quantum of damages payable. But the Supreme Court set all doubts aside in another landmark decision in the case of ''Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India'' where, it was held that the rule laid down in Mehta's case was not ''obiter'' and was appropriate and suited to the conditions prevailing in the country.


See also

*
English tort law English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than English criminal law, crimi ...
* US tort law *
Strict liability In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Und ...


Notes


References

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *{{cite journal, last=Woodside III, first=Frank C., author2=Mark L. Silbersack , author3=Travis L. Fliehman , author4=Douglas J. Feichtner , year=2003, title=Why Absolute Liability under Rylands v Fletcher is Absolutely Wrong!, journal=Dayton Law Review, publisher= University of Dayton School of Law, volume=29, issue=1, issn=0162-9174


External links


Full text of judgment on Bailii
English tort case law English nuisance cases House of Lords cases 1860s in the environment 1868 in case law Lord Blackburn cases Baron Bramwell cases 1868 in British law Legal doctrines and principles