RYLANDS v FLETCHER

INTRODUCTION
In Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330, the defendants employed independent contractors to constr ct a reservoir on their land! "he contractors fo nd dis sed mines #hen di$$in$ % t failed to seal them properly! "hey filled the reservoir #ith #ater! &s a res lt, #ater flooded thro $h the mineshafts into the plaintiff's mines on the ad(oinin$ property! "he plaintiff sec red a verdict at Liverpool &ssi)es! "he *o rt of +,che- er *ham%er held the defendant lia%le and the Ho se of Lords affirmed their decision! Requirements It #as decided %y .lac/% rn 0, #ho delivered the ( d$ment of the *o rt of +,che- er *ham%er, and the Ho se of Lords, that to s cceed in this tort the claimant m st sho#1 1! "hat the defendant %ro $ht somethin$ onto his land2 3! "hat the defendant made a 4non5nat ral se4 of his land (per Lord *airns, L*)2 3! "he thin$ #as somethin$ li/ely to do mischief if it escaped2 6! "he thin$ did escape and ca se dama$e! Foreseeability "here is no# a f rther re- irement, accordin$ to the Ho se of Lords, that harm of the relevant type m st have %een foreseea%le!

REQUIREMENTS

1. The defendant brought something onto his land In la#, there is a difference %et#een thin$s that $ro# or occ r nat rally on the land, and those that are acc m lated there artificially %y the defendant! For e,ample, roc/s and thistles nat rally occ r on land! Ho#ever, the defendants in Rylands v Fletcher %ro $ht #ater onto the land!

2. Non-natural use of the land In the Ho se of Lords, Lord *airns L*, laid do#n the re- irement that there m st %e a non5 nat ral se of the land!

Recent e,amples are1

+llison v 7inistry of 8efence (199:) 81 .LR 101, ;199:<*L= 3866

3. Something likely to do mischief "he thin$ %ro $ht onto the land m st %e somethin$ li/ely to do mischief if it escapes! In s ch a sit ation the defendant /eeps it in at his peril! . !sca"e "here m st %e an escape of the dan$ero s s %stance from the defendant's land!

#. Foreseeability >ee a%ove for the *am%rid$e ?ater *ase (1996)!

REMEDIES

The o$ner of land close to the esca"e can reco%er damages for& 1! @hysical harm to the land itself (as in Rylands v Fletcher) and to other property!

3! It is no lon$er clear if a claimant can recover for personal in( ry!

DEFENCES

& n m%er of defences have %een developed to the r le in Rylands v Fletcher! 1. 'onsent "he e,press or implied consent of the claimant to the presence of so rce of the dan$er, provided there has %een no ne$li$ence %y the defendant, #ill %e a defence! 2. 'ommon (enefit If the so rce of the dan$er #as maintained for the %enefit of %oth the claimant and defendant, the defendant #ill not %e lia%le for its escape! "his defence is either related to the defence of consent or the same thin$! &ccordin$ to ?infield A 0olo#ic), pBB1, 4common %enefit seems red ndant (and indeed misleadin$) as an independent defence4! 3. )ct of a stranger "he defendant #ill not %e lia%le if a stran$er #as responsi%le for the escape! Rickards % *othian +1,13- )' 2.3. "he 8 #as not lia%le #hen an n/no#n person %loc/ed a %asin on his property and ca sed a flood, #hich dama$ed a flat %elo#!

. Statutory authority & stat te may re- ire a person or %ody to carry o t a partic lar activity! Lia%ility nder Rylands v Fletcher may %e e,cl ded pon the interpretation of the stat te! #. )ct of /od &n act of Cod is an event #hich 'no h man foresi$ht can provide a$ainst, and of #hich h man pr dence is not %o nd to reco$nise the possi%ility' (per Lord ?est% ry, "ennent v +arl of Clas$o# (1866) 3 7 (HL) 33 at 3653:)! Nichols % 0arsland 1123.4 2 !56 1! +,ceptionally heavy rain ca sed artificial la/es, %rid$es and #ater#ays to %e flooded and dama$e ad(oinin$ land! "he 8 #as not lia%le! Ho#ever, Nichols % 0arsland #as do %ted %y the Ho se of Lords in1 /reenock 'or"oration % 'aledonian Rail$ay +1,13- )' ##.. "he corp! constr cted a concrete paddlin$ pool for children in the %ed of a stream and o%str cted the nat ral flo# of the stream! D#in$ to a rainfall of e,traordinary violence the stream overflo#ed at the pond and dama$ed the property of the plaintiffs! Held that the e,traordinary rainfall did not a%solve the corp! from responsi%ility and that they #ere lia%le in dama$es! .. 6efault of the claimant If the escape is the fa lt of the claimant there #ill %e no lia%ility! &lternatively, there may %e contri% tory ne$li$ence on the part of the claimant!