Case law for Rylands v Fletcher

Rylands v Fletcher

The defendant had a resevoir built on his land. The contractors found some old mineshafts when digging but did not plug them. When the reservoir was filled it spilled into the shaft and flooded adjoining mineshafts belonging to the claimant. This case established this area of law. 

Four elements of Rylands v Fletcher 

1. Something is bough onto the land a stored 

2. The thing brought is likely to cause a mischief it escapes – Needs to be foreseeable that if somehow it did escape, they would cause damage. It does not have to be foreseeable they could escape. 

3. This must amount to a non-natural use of the land 

4. This thing must then escape and causes reasonably foreseeable damage to an adjoining property 

Transco v Stockport BC

‘Ought reasonably to have recognised as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger if there should be an escape however unlikely’. This made the standard very high. 

Giles v Walker

Seeds from some thistles went over to the claimant's property harming his crop yields. The defendant was not liable as they had not brought the thistles there, they were naturally growing in this field. 

Hale v Jenning bros

A ‘chair-o-plane' broke off and hit someone. While it wasn’t foreseeable it could fall off just that if a chair spinning in the air would hurt someone if it escaped.  However, the later ruling of Transco has raised the standard and this would now not be liable.

Rickards v Lothian

D lived in a flat above C. An unknow person plugged all of D’s plugs and flooded the house causing the ceiling to be damaged and C’s flat to be damaged. There was no liability here as it is not a non-natural use of land to have water coming out of taps.  

Cambridge Water Co v Eastern counties leather

The defendant kept acid for tanning at their factory. It had leaked into the soil and seeped into the groundwater. This forced the water company to relocate to an area without damaged water. Not liable as too remote an escape from the mischief caused. 

Read v Lyons

A munitions inspector was inspecting the interior of a shell factory when a shell exploded. He claimed under Rylands, but the defendant was not liable as the ‘thing’ had not escaped to an adjoining property which is required for a successful claim. 

The rule for fire – Wyvern Tyres v Gore

The shop sold tyre. These tyres caught alight and burned through to the adjoining property. The courts felt that under Transco the danger had to be exceptionally dangerous which tyres were not. It was also felt that the tyres did not escape and as they were storing tyres not the fire the ‘thing’ never escaped. 

British Celanese v Hunt

If there is a freak one off event is can be seen as unforeseeable the ‘thing’ would cause mischief. In this case D had been warned not to let foil from his factory escaping onto a nearby substation. When this exact thing happened he could not use this defence.

Nichols v Marsland

Established the ‘Act of God’ defence. In this case artificial lakes were flooded by an extraordinary, unforeseeable amount of rain that caused flooding onto C’s land. The ‘Act of God’ was so extreme it could not have been reasonably anticipated or guarded against.

Peters v Prince of Wales of theatre

The claimants shop was flooded by the sprinkler system of the theatre next door. It was ruled they had consented in the lease and that a sprinkler system was mutually beneficially to stopping fires spreading to his shop.

Green v Chelsea Waterworks

A water main burst causing damage to C’s property. The company had a statutory authority to run the pipe at high pressure so damage was inevitably causes if it escaped. The defence of statutory authority cleared all liability.