PROJECT ON

“CASE ANALYSIS OF RYLANDS VS FLETCHER”

SUBJECT – LAW OF TORTS

SUBMITTED TO – PROF NIHARIKA GAYAKWAD

SUBMITED BY – SHASHIKANT ANKUSH CHANDANSHIVE

ROLL NO – 18

DATE OF SUBMISSION – 24/07/2023

LLB FIRST YEAR (2022 – 2023)

KLE COLLEGE OF LAW

NAVI MUMBAI

1
 KLE SOCIETY’S KLE COLLEGE OF LAW, NAVI MUMBAI

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the Research Project submitted by SHASHIKANT A

Place: Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai

Date: 24/07/2023

Prof. Niharika Gayakwad

Assistant Professor

Prof. Dinkar Gitte

Principal, KLE College of Law

Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai

2
 ABSTRACT

The rylands v. Fletcher case, decided by the house of lords in 1868, has had a profound and
lasting impact on the legal concept of strict liability for damages caused by non-natural uses
of land. This research paper examines the historical context, legal arguments, and the far-
reaching implications of the landmark judgment. The paper explores how rylands v. Fletcher
laid the foundation for strict liability principles and shaped subsequent tort law in various
jurisdictions worldwide.

3
 INDEX

SR. NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 FACTS OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE 6

3 JUDGEMENT OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE 7

4 IMPORTANCE OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE 9

5 CRITICISM OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER 11

6 CONCLUSION 14

7 REFRENCES 16

4
 INTRODUCTION

No matter how much confusing this quote may sound, back in the day it was used to describe
the case of John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v. Thomas Fletcher, popularly known
as Rylands v Fletcher, perfectly. The case revolves around the principles of liability in tort
law, and it became one of the leading cases of the English common law. Tort law is
concerned with civil wrongs that usually require the payment of money as compensation for
the damage caused to a person. This case developed the rule of strict liability in a completely
new sense, and went on to provide ground for other cases as well.

Even though Rylands v Fletcher case had a profound effect on the English courts, it was
disregarded in many jurisdictions, such as Scotland and Australia, where the doctrine was
extirpated. In England and Wales, however, the law remains valid; the cases of Cambridge
Water Co. Ltd. v. Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco plc v. Stockport
Metropolitan Borough Council recognised that the rule is not an independent tort but is a
sub-tort of nuisance.

5
 FACTS OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE

The defendant, Rylands, had a reservoir constructed on his land by independent contractors.
The contractors were independently chosen, and apparently seemed competent to carry out
the construction. When the construction of the reservoir was in process, the contractors came
across some old coal shafts and passages that were beneath the defendant’s land. These
passages were connected to a mine on another person’s land, i.e. the plaintiff, Thomas
Fletcher, but the contractors discovered that they were filled with loose soil and earth. The
contractors did not pay attention to them and continued to build the reservoir over the
passages. When the reservoir was complete, it was filled with water.

On 11th December 1860, shortly after the water was filled in the reservoir, water caused the
reservoir to burst and entered the passages beneath the reservoir. Consequently, the water
reached the plaintiff’s land and burst through the mine on the land, the Red House Colliery,
thus flooding them. Fletcher tried pumping the water out, but on 17th April 1861, his pump
also burst, causing the mine to flood again. Ultimately, a mines inspector was called, and the
coal shafts beneath the defendant’s land were discovered. Fletcher brought an action against
Rylands as well as the landowner, Jehu Horrocks, on 4th November 1861.

6
 JUDGEMENT OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE

The main issue in front of the court was that whether the defendant’s use of land was
unreasonable and, as a result, whether he was liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff. The
decision was given by the Court of Exchequer Chamber in 1866, and was later confirmed by
the House of Lords in 1868.

The tort of trespass was found inapplicable because the flooding of the plaintiff’s property
was not direct and immediate but incidental, and the tort of nuisance was disallowed since
this was a one-time event, whereas nuisance is in continuity. Mellor, J, and a special jury at
the Liverpool Assizes initially heard the case, in September 1862, which led to an arbitrator
being appointed by the Exchequer of Pleas in December 1864. The arbitrator stated that it
was the contractors who were liable for negligence, because they were aware about the
existence of the shafts, whereas Rylands had no knowledge of them, thus freeing him of
liability.

The case was then heard by the Exchequer of Pleas between 3rd and 5th May 1865, where two
major issues were raised:

1. Whether the negligence of the contractors made the defendants liable for the damage
caused?
2. Whether the defendants were liable in spite of no negligence on their part?
For the first issue, it was held that the defendants were not liable, but for the second issue, the
opinions were split. The dissenting opinion was from Bramwell B, who observed that the
plaintiff had a right of enjoyment of his land without any interference, and the water was an
interference from the defendants, thus making him liable for the damages. It was the
defendants who had caused the water to flow on the land of the plaintiff, and had their act not
been so, there would have been no discontinuation in the enjoyment of the land by the
plaintiff.

Thomas Fletcher then appealed to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, from which the final
decision arrived. The decision of the Exchequer of Pleas was overturned, and the case was
ruled in Fletcher’s favour. As stated by Blackburn J, who spoke on behalf of all judges, the

7
reality of the rule of law is that a person, who brings or collects on his land anything that is
likely to cause mischief in case it escapes, then he must do so at his own peril. Such a person
brings that thing on his land for his own purposes, and he, prima facie, is responsible for the
consequences that may arrive as a result of the escape of such thing. There can be exceptions
if the escape is due to the plaintiff, or if it is due to vis major or an act of God. But, since
there is nothing of this sort that exists here, no excuse from the defendant would be sufficient.
The general principle that comes to be just here is that a person who suffers loss because of
the actions of his neighbour, whether it be the eating of his corn by the neighbour’s cattle, or
the flooding of his mine by the water from the neighbour’s reservoir, or his residence made
unhealthy by the fumes and vapours from the neighbouring land, is to be compensated as
there is no fault of his own. And such neighbour is obliged to make good the damage caused
to the person whose property is destroyed, in case he is unable to keep the mischief from
being caused, even though the thing is harmless if contained in his own property.

Since the rule, as laid down in this case, had not been formulated then, Blackburn J’s view
relied on several other torts, such as that of chattel trespass, the tort of nuisance, and the in-
scienter action.

Rylands appealed to the House of Lords, but his appeal was dismissed. They stood in favour
of Fletcher, and Lord Cairns, speaking for the house, stated that they agreed with the rule
stated by Blackburn J, but added a limit to the liability which said that the land from which
the mischievous thing escapes must be in use for a non-natural, inappropriate or unusual
purpose. The case was heard on 6th and 7th July 1868 by the House of Lords, and the
judgement was delivered on 17th July. Lord Cairns observed that had the defendants, being
owners and occupiers of the land, been using the land for natural purposes, for which in the
ordinary course of enjoyment of the land, there had been accumulation of water in natural
quantities, and had the water escaped the land of the defendants under ordinary course of
natural laws, then the plaintiff was not entitled to complain, and it would have fallen upon the
plaintiff to guard his land from flooding. But here, the defendants were amassing unnaturally
large quantities of water, which could not be termed as natural, and as an outcome of
imperfection in their action, the water in the reservoir caused the plaintiff’s land to be flooded
and his mine destroyed. The actions of the defendants resulted in injury to the plaintiff,
making the defendants liable to compensate the plaintiff. In his opinion, Lord Cairns relied on
the cases of Smith v. Kenrick and Baird v. Williamson

8
 IMPORTANCE OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE

The rule of liability as laid down explicitly in Rylands v Fletcher is relatively new to English
law as well. Emphasis has been placed on the enjoyment of private property in English law,
and this rule only furthers its application. What was laid down, in this case, was that strict
liability would be applied on defendants who gathered mischievous or dangerous things on
their lands which caused damage to their neighbours, even though there was no wrongful
intention or negligence on part of the defendants. If the defendants were not to be held for
their actions in such cases, then it would become very difficult to place the liability. In law,
there is a significant difference between things that are naturally grown or found on land and
things that are gathered or accumulated artificially by the owner or occupier of the land. If a
naturally occurring thing escapes the land and causes damage to another, it would not be
regarded as negligence since it happened in the ordinary course of circumstances. Liability
only arises when the land is being used for unusual or public purposes, such as keeping cattle
or constructing a reservoir, which the owner has to keep in check on his own.

9
 EXCEPTIONS

Like almost every other rule, the rule of liability, in this case, is attached with certain
exceptions:

1. If the escape was due to the plaintiff’s own actions and the defendant had no role to
play in it.
2. If the escape of the thing was due to an act of God.
3. If the escape was due to an irrational or supernatural force, which is similar to an act
of God but it takes into account all such events which could not have been
apprehended beforehand, or events happening in rare circumstances.
4. If the escape was due to an act of a stranger to the circumstances upon whom the
defendant had no control and nor the defendant could have anticipated or controlled
the situation created by the stranger
For this rule to be applicable, it is important that the use of land from which the mischievous
thing escapes, be non-natural or apart from the ordinary sequence of things. If the land were
as it would have been under ordinary circumstances, then the plaintiff cannot claim damages
for any injury.

10
 CRITICISM OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER JUDGMENT

When the judgement of Rylands v Fletcher case came out, it faced criticism within England
and Wales, along with facing opposition outside. Doe CJ, the Associate Justice as well as
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the state of New Hampshire, USA, viewed the
judgement as going against the necessary uses of land and obstructing the work of a man. The
American interpretation mainly revolved around the judgement being economically harmful.
In Canada, the case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation[10] was inspired by the rule
of Rylands v Fletcher. In Scotland, the principle was applied initially, in the case
of Mackintosh v. Mackintosh[11], but it came to an end in RHM Bakeries v. Strathclyde
Regional Council[12]. It was disregarded as being a heresy that had to be erased. In India,
the rule became ineffective with the onset of time, and the Supreme Court, in M. C.
Mehta v. Union of India[13], evolved the principle of absolute liability, leaving no loopholes
to seek for big enterprises that caused extensive damage and escape from liability.

11
 OVERVIEW OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE

The rule laid down, in this case, has wide implications. Therefore, whenever a similar case
comes before the courts in England and Wales, the judges have to decide it keeping in mind
the imposition of the rule as well as the application of exceptions, if any. The exceptions to
this rule are not limited, but can be developed when a case is decided in the footsteps
of Rylands v Fletcher. The law of 19th century England was stricter than today, hence the
development of the rule. However, cases like these often put the existing laws in question and
force the liability on the one who holds the responsibility of the wrongdoing. No matter how
wide the application of this case may be, it is essential to hold the right people accountable
for actions causing loss to the innocents.

12
 QUESTIONS ON RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE

What was the opinion of the House of Lords on the case of Rylands v Fletcher?

The House of Lords stood in favour of Fletcher, when Rylands appealed against the
judgement of the Court of Exchequer, and Lord Cairns, speaking for the house, stated that
they agreed with the rule stated by Blackburn J. Lord Cairns added a limit to the liability
which said that the land from which the mischievous thing escapes must be in use for a non-
natural, inappropriate or unusual purpose.

Why did the jurisdiction of USA disregard the rule of Rylands v Fletcher?

As per American interpretation, they believed that the doctrine would cause economic loss as
it would restrict people from carrying out necessary economic activities on their lands due to
reason of liability befalling upon them in case anything goes wrong.

Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability. Is strict liability relevant in the present
scenario?

While strict liability may attach some exceptions, it is important to note that cases like
Rylands v Fletcher are ever existing, which pose two situations: one where the defendant
invites liability, and the other, where the defendant does not invite any liability. Strict liability
is applicable in both the situations: the rule applicable in the first situation, and the exceptions
applicable in the second. Just the wide implication of the rule cannot be the basis of
disregarding the entire doctrine.

13
 COCLUSION

The case of Rylands v. Fletcher is a landmark legal decision in the field of tort law and
specifically deals with the principle of strict liability for non-natural users of land. The
judgment was delivered by the English Court of Exchequer in 1868 and has had a significant
impact on the development of tort law in common law jurisdictions.

In the case, Rylands, the defendant, had employed independent contractors to construct a
reservoir on his land to provide a water supply for his mill. The contractors, in the course of
constructing the reservoir, discovered disused coal shafts on the land owned by Fletcher.
These shafts allowed water to flow from Fletcher's land into the reservoir, leading to flooding
and damage to Fletcher's coal mines.

The court held that although Rylands had not been negligent in constructing the reservoir, he
was still liable for the damages caused to Fletcher's property. The court established the
principle that a person who brings something onto their land that is likely to cause harm if it
escapes and causes damage to neighboring properties will be strictly liable for such damage,
regardless of whether they were negligent or not.

The key elements of the Rylands v. Fletcher rule are as follows:

1. The defendant brings something onto their land that is not naturally there.

2. The thing brought onto the land is likely to do mischief if it escapes.

3. The thing does escape and causes damage to a neighboring property.

The rule has been criticized and narrowed in some later cases, particularly in situations
involving natural uses of land or where the defendant has not brought anything unnatural onto
their land. However, it still remains an important precedent in tort law, providing a basis for
holding individuals or companies strictly liable for certain activities that may cause harm to
others.

14
In conclusion, the Rylands v. Fletcher case established the principle of strict liability for non-
natural uses of land, ensuring that those who undertake such activities are held responsible
for damages caused to neighboring properties, even if they were not negligent in their actions.

15
 REFRENCES

[1] [1868] UKHL 1: (1868) LR 3 HL 330.

[2] Ibid.

[3] [1994] 1 All ER 53.

[4] [2003] UKHL 61.

[5] A superior or irrational force.

[6] Intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

[7] 55 S.W.2d 598.

[8] [1868] UKHL 1.

[9] Supra note 1.

[10] 2013 ABQB 537.

[11] [1886] SLR 23_471.

[12] 1985 SC (HL) 17.

[13] 1987 AIR 1086.

16