Download Rylands v. Fletcher Case: Strict Liability for Unnatural Use of Land and more Papers Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity!
Akash Jaini Law of Torts and Consumer Protection Professor Raabia Abuzer Shams Case Note 17 October 2020 Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 I) Facts – In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, Rylands hired contractors to build a large, water containing reservoir on his land, to supply water to a nearby mill. The reservoir happened to be built on land which had once been used for coal mining, and therefore had coal shafts and passages running under and along the land. These shafts and passages had been improperly filled when the mining had concluded, with rock, soil and other natural debris. The engineers and contractors building the reservoir noticed and identified the improper shaft blockage, but decided to both not inform Rylands of the issue and also to continue to build the reservoir in the same fashion anyway, without properly blocking the shafts themselves. On completion of the reservoir, the reservoir immediately burst the first time it was filled, and the escaped water ran along the shafts and passages, flooding Fletcher’s adjacent mine. Fletcher continuously pumped out water from his mines for months until his pump finally broke, resulting in a total damage worth of £937 to Fletcher. It was at this point that Fletcher called in a ‘mines expert’ and the sunken coal shafts and passages were identified. Fletcher sued Rylands for the damages to his land and property.i i (^) Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 – page 1
II) Issue – The issue in this case was to determine whether Rylands was liable for the damage caused to Fletcher’s mine. While it was also argued that Fletcher should be responsible for the negligence on part of the contractors since he hired them to build the reservoir on his land, this argument was ruled against the plaintiff in the appeal Court of Exchecquer and not discussed in further appeals or proceedings.ii Therefore, the only way to identify if Rylands was responsible was to question if he should be liable regardless of any proof of negligence on his part, simply by ordering the construction of a reservoir that might, and later did, burst and damage Fletcher’s mines. III) Rule – The rule in this case is that of Strict Liability. The concept of Liability in the English Law of Torts generally relied on the extent of precautions someone took in their actions. A lack of precautions or negligence in one’s actions would lead them to be responsible for the harm and damages done, however conversely if there is no proof of negligence or lack of precaution, the they generally are not held responsible and therefore do not have to compensate any damages.iii Strict liability instead, is a tort rule that holds individuals or parties responsible for their actions and their consequences without needing to prove either negligence or fault. Unlike Absolute Liability, Strict Liability does have some exceptions, like absolutely unforeseeable circumstances such as acts of God etc and is determined on the basis of actions and the potential consequences they can have, with or without negligence or fault. In this case it was decided that the plaintiff used his land for unnatural uses and brought onto it something that may cause mischief if escaped, and therefore was liable.iv ii (^) Francis H. Bohlen. “ The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher: Part I ”, 59 U. Pa. L. Rev. 298 (1911) – page 29 9 iii (^) Fordham, Margaret. “The Demise of The Rule in Rylands V Fletcher?” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies , ( 1995 ) – page 3 iv (^) Fordham, Margaret. “The Demise of The Rule in Rylands V Fletcher?” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, (1995) – page 4
While on the face of these judgements they may seem to be contradictory, Lord Cairns enunciates a stark principle distinction in his judgement of the issue. He stated that if using or enjoying the land in a ‘natural’ manner led to other consequences of a natural manner such as the removal of a coal barrier leading to accumulated groundwater to overflow and flood land, those using their land naturally can not be held liable. However, if someone were to use their land for any ‘unnatural’ means, such as bringing in and installing a reservoir with an unnatural amount of water, then regardless of it being a lawful act and of there being no negligence, they are liable for the consequences of or ‘evil’ that this action may cause. ix Lord Cairns himself cites a quote from Justice Blackburn of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, who best articulates this distinction by stating, “We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land 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 primâ facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by shewing 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. The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbour, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbour's reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbour's privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapours of his neighbour's alkali works, is damnified without any fault of his own; and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour who has brought something on his own property (which was not naturally there), harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property.”x ix (^) Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 – page 2 x (^) Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 – page 3
V) Conclusion – Given these arguments made by the court, it was ruled that since Rylands had used his land in an ‘unnatural’ manner by bringing something that when escaped, could cause ‘mischief’ or ‘evil’, that he was liable for the damages that Fletcher incurred. It was interesting to see how Justice Blackburn seemed to limit the scope of this strict liability to hazards that may escape one’s property, while Lord Cairns expanded that to his explanation of natural and unnatural uses of land. This however, may be mostly a technical discrepancy barring very few cases where it may actually come into play. Justice Blackburn in his judgment also began to lay out cases for exceptions to this rule of Strict Liability, but did not give an extensive or comprehensive list of exceptions given the irrelevance to the case. xi Therefore, both the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lord ruled that Rylands was in fact, liable for the damages caused to Fletcher despite no negligence on the principle of Strict Liability.xii xi (^) Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 – page 2 xii (^) Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330 – page 4
