NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW

CASE COMMENTERY

ON

RYLANDS V. FLETCHER

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

SUBMITTED BY

VEDANT DIKSHIT

ROLL NO.:- 2014-71

COURSE: - B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) I St SEMESTER

SUBMITTED TO

Dr. ARUNA B. VENKAT

1 | P a g e

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE..........................................................................................................4

FACT SUMMARY OF THE CASE:......................................................................................................4

HISTORY OF THE CASE:..................................................................................................................5

Court of Liverpool Assizes......................................................................................................5Court of Exchequer..................................................................................................................5Court of Appeal........................................................................................................................5House of Lords........................................................................................................................5

JUDGEMENT:..................................................................................................................................6

PRIOR TO RYLANDS V. FLETCHER CASE:.......................................................................................7

ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................................8

ESSENTIALS AND ELEMENTS DERIVED FROM THE CASE...............................................................8

I. There Should Be a Dangerous Thing (on escape which can cause mischief)......................8II. The Dangerous Thing Must Escape....................................................................................8III. It Must Be A Non-Natural Use Of Land............................................................................9IV. There Should Be Damage..................................................................................................9

EVOLUTION OF THE ESSENTIALS DERIVED FROM CASE...............................................................10

EVOLUTION OF STRICT LIABILITY IN INDIA: A FURTHER STEP.....................................................12

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................14

2 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

Law of Torts is an un-codified civil law; it develops through cases that come before of the court.

The new principles of torts are generally developed by the judges in the court while dealing with

cases. For example, principle of negligence has been developed from Donoghue v. Stevenson1,

principle of nuisance from Sturges v. Bridgman2. This process is keep on going since the very

beginning of common law system in C.E 1200 to the very latest time in 1987 when Supreme

Court of India derived the principle of absolute liability from the case called as Oleum Gas Leak

case3. Thus, it is evident from this that law of tort is continuously evolving and principles are

derived by the judges from the cases that require different kinds of principle.

One such same thing happened in the case called as Ryland v. Fletcher.4 Ryland v. Fletcher

[1868] UKHL 1 opened the way for strict liability. Principle of strict liability state that it is the

legal responsibility of defendant to pay damages if he found strictly liable even though he was

not at the fault or in simple word, liability without fault.5 In other words, If a person brings a

potentially harmful thing on his land and makes non natural use of it and the thing is of such

nature that on escape it may cause nuisance or damage, then he will be held liable for the damage

caused due to the escape even if, he has no fault in the escape.6

1 Donoghue v Stevenson, UKHL 100 (1932). 2 Sturges v Bridgman, LR 852 (11 1879). 3 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors,1 SCR 819 (1987).4 John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher, 1 UKHL 330 (1868).5 Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary. 4th ed. West Publishing Co. 1891.

6

3 | P a g e

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

FACT SUMMARY OF THE CASE :

1) John Rylands constructed a reservoir on land rented from Lord Wilton to supply water to his

steam-powered textile mill.

2) Thomas Fletcher uses to operate mines on nearby land which was also rented from Lord

Wilton, Fletcher excavated up to old disused mines which were under the land where

Rylands reservoir was constructed.

3) Rylands hired independent contractors to construct the reservoir which was finished in

December 1860.

4) While working on the construction site, the contractors came across some old mine shafts

which were loosely filled with gravels and soil. They did not seal these shafts. These shafts

were internally interconnected to tunnels and tunnels finally into the Fletcher's mines.

5) Water from Rylands' reservoir flooded the Fletcher's mines on 11 December 1860, after

completion of the reservoir and after it had been partially filled. There had been no excessive

rains or local floods.

6) Fletcher sued Rylands.

4 | P a g e

HISTORY OF THE CASE:

Court of Liverpool Assizes

Fletcher filed a case in Court of Liverpool Assizes (Summer Session) in 1861. The Liverpool

Court considering the act as, trespass as well as nuisance held Rylands liable and decided in the

favour of the plaintiff Fletcher. Rylands successfully appealed in the Court of Exchequer.

Court of Exchequer

Court of Exchequer in 1865 overturned the previous order saying, trespass requires direct Human

involvement in the invasion, of use of Land and ill intent and since Rylands had no ill-intent

there is no trespass (it is a principle that, victim being the one to bear the cost of the accident).

Fletcher appealed in the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal

Court of Appeal, (L.R. 1 Ex. 265) decided in favour of the appellant Fletcher in 1866. Justice

Colin Blackburn said, if a person, brings on his lands and collects and keeps anything which is

brought for his use and is dangerous or likely to do mischief on escapes, must be held prima

facie answerable for all the damage caused as its natural consequence of escape. However the

person can be excused if the person proves that there was Plaintiff’s default or Act of God.

Rylands appealed to the House of Lords.

House of Lords

House of Lords dismissed the appeal and gave decision in the favour of Fletcher, in 1868 (L.R. 3

H.L. 330). Lord Cairns, agreed with the rule delivered by Justice Blackburn, but added another

condition on liability, that the land from where the escape happened must be subjected to non-

natural, or inappropriate use. Fletcher won the case and got compensation and Rylands was held

5 | P a g e

strictly liable but more than this, the major contribution of this case was that it led to the

development of principle of strict liability.

JUDGEMENT :

The judgement of this case lay downs the principle of strict liability, According to which, If a

person brings on his land and keeps there any dangerous thing i.e. a thing on escape which could

do mischief, he will be prima facie answerable for the damage caused by its escape even though

he had not been at fault.7 The points that were mainly laid down are:-

A person will be strictly held liable if,

1. A person brings to his land a dangerous thing (capable of causing nuisance on escape).

2. The thing brought escapes.

3. It must be non-natural use of land.8

4. It should cause damage. (In 1994 the clause of damage as reasonably foreseeable added.)

The court decided in favour of Fletcher and ordered Rylands to pay for all the property damage

to the mine. The court said that Rylands had a duty while maintaining the reservoir, and is liable

for all harm caused due to it with general scope of liability under principle of strict liability as

described above by Justice Blackburn in Court of Appeal and Lord Cairns in House of Lords. 

Along with providing the principle of strict liability the court also gave exception to this rule that

is plaintiff’s own default and Act of God, but with the passage of time and, more and more

development of judiciary various other exceptions also got added to it like Plaintiff’s consent,

Act of third party and Statutory authority. It will be discussed in detail in the later part of the

project.

7 Bangia, R.K. “Law of Torts,” 20th ed., 387. Haryana: Allahabad Law Agency, 2007.8 Ibid note 10

6 | P a g e

PRIOR TO RYLANDS V. FLETCHER CASE :

The case Rylands v. Fletcher though was path breaking but before this case, When there was no

principle of strict liability, the cases were decided on a different basis; The examination of the

method by which case (involving matters of strict liability) were decided before the evolution of

principle of strict liability is as follow,

One such case was Voughan v Menlove,9 the decision of case Rylands v. Fletcher mainly relayed

Voughan v Menlove. In this case defendant constructed a hayrick near his land’s boundary which

also bordered the plaintiff's land. The defendant's used precautions to prevent spontaneous

ignition, but it ignited anyway. Defendant had been warned many times over five weeks that the

manner in which the hay rick is built is dangerous. On one particular day, the hay ignited and

spread to the plaintiff's land and destroyed two of his cottages. The court said, although the

defendant’s has no bad intention, but he did not act reasonably as a man of ordinary prudence

would have acted. Defendant was held Liable under Negligence.

Though this case was used in Rylands v. Fletcher, but principle of strict liability was never even

considered. The case is in place used under the principle of law of Negligence. Most of the cases

were decided on the basis of negligence or trespass, before the principle of strict liability came.

There was no concept of liability when damage was caused due to escape of dangerous things.

Rylnds v Fletcher brought the concept of “strict liability” into play opening a new branch of No-

fault liability.

9 Voughan v Menlove, 132 ER 490 (1837).

7 | P a g e

ANALYSIS

ESSENTIALS AND ELEMENTS DERIVED FROM THE CASE

The court presented some essential while laying down, the principle of strict liability. The

essentials too evolved through the time and are interpret differently in different cases. A detailed

analysis of essential of strict liability as derived by court in case Ryland v. Fletcher and how each

essential evolved and was applied to the case is as follow,

I. There Should Be a Dangerous Thing (on escape which can cause mischief)

This principle is called as most basic principle that came out of the case Rylands v. Fletcher, To

Prove the strict liability the very basic need is the existence of a dangerous thing which is

brought by defendant. The meaning of the term ‘Dangerous” can vary broadly. Here the term

“Dangerous” does not merely says things of furious nature.Non-frivolous things like Water to

extremely frivolous things like Fire, Electricity etc. can also become dangerous. The definition of

the term “Dangerous should be hence understood as the things which can cause mischief once

escaped. In Rylands v. Fletcher the dangerous thing was Water which due to its large quantity

became capable of causing mischief hence, was dangerous. The dangerous things could also be

Gas10, Electricity,11 Noxious fumes,12 Explosives,13 Vibrations14 etc, as they were said dangerous,

in the cases cited and defendant was held liable under strict liability.

II. The Dangerous Thing Must Escape

The case Rylands v. Fletcher also lay down the principle that to apply the criteria of strict

liability, it is required that the dangerous thing must escape. Thus, if any dangerous thing escapes

out and due to it someone gets damage the owner will be liable,15 but if the dangerous thing

doesn’t escape and plaintiff himself comes to land of defendant and gets damaged by the

10 Batcheller v. Tunbrige, 84 LT 765 (1901).11 National Telephone Co. v Baker, 2 Ch 186 (1893).12 West v. Bristol Tramways Co., 2 K.B. 14 (1908).13 T.C. Balkrishnan v. T.R. Subrahamaniam, A.I.R 151, (Kerela 1968).14 Hoare & Co v. Mc. Alpine, 1 Ch. 167 (1893).15 Crowhrust v. Amersham Burial Board, 4 Ex. D. 5 (1878).

8 | P a g e

dangerous thing in such a scenario the defendant cannot be held liable.16 In the prior cited case

Crowhrust v. Amersham Burial Board, there was projection of branches of a poisonous tree

rooted in defendant’s land on Plaintiff’s Land. Plaintiff’s cow ate the poisonous leaves from the

branch and died. Here the court said, the Projection also amounts to the escape, Hence defendant

is Liable whereas, in the other case Plaintiff’s horse itself entered the defendant’s land and ate

poisonous leaves. The court said since there is no escape, defendant is not Liable. Thus, escape

of dangerous thing is another very important aspect of strict liability.

III. It Must Be A Non-Natural Use Of Land

This was the essential that was added as an additional limitation by Lord Cairns in the judgement

given by J. Blackburn. In the case Rylands v. Fletcher, accumulation of such a large amount of

Water was held as Non-Natural use of Land. Keeping of water for domestic purpose does not

amount to Non-Natural use of land as court said in case Richards v. Lothian.17 Hence it can be

said that considering the accumulation of certain things as Natural or Non-Natural use depends

upon the various factors such as Nature,18 Amount,19 Temperature20 etc. of the accumulated thing.

For example this case Rylands v. Fletcher, amount of water made it non-natural use of Land.

Similarly, in the case Stella Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurants PTS Inc the temperature of the

coffee made it far above the ordinary temperature and court thus awarded exemplary damages.

IV. There Should Be Damage

In Rylands v. Fletcher was the occurrence of Damage was held essential. In case when there is no

legal damage, a person cannot have cause of action.21 Later in 1994, while deciding the case

Cambridge Water Co Ltd case22, the court held that the damage so caused, should be reasonably

foreseeable. This principle could be applied to Rylands v. Fletcher also since it could be foreseen

that escape of such amount of water would cause damage. If the damage which could happen due

to escape is unforeseeable, no damages are provided as in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern

Counties Leather plc, there was escape of dangerous chemical from the factory but the damages

16 Poanting v. Noakes, 2 Q.B. 281 (1994).17 Richards v. Lothian, AC 263 (1913).18 Supra note 1619 Supra note 420 Stella Liebeck v McDonald’s Restaurants PTS Inc. McDonald’s International, Inc., Extra LEXIS 23 (1994).21 Glouchester Grammar School case 11 Hen, 4 (1410)22 Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc, 1 All E.R. 53 (1994).

9 | P a g e

that Cambridge Water Co. contended were not foreseeable, Hence defendant was not held liable.

EVOLUTION OF THE ESSENTIALS DERIVED FROM CASE

With the passage of time, and more and more cases coming in the courts, the essentials derived

from the case Ryland v. Fletcher evolved and various new aspects and exceptions came out of it.

As discussed above, how the clause of Reasonably Foreseeable Damage got added as the

essential in the principle of strict liability, using Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties

Leather plc as landmark. Similarly, through cases themselves various exceptions to the rule were

also developed. The common exception to the rule and their application of Rylands v. Fletcher is

as follow:

1) Plaintiff’s own default

2) Act of God

3) Consent of Plaintiff

4) Act of Third Party

5) Statutory Authority

Plaintiff’s own default: If the Plaintiff suffers damage due to his own fault the defendant can

use this defence. In Ponting v. Noakes23 the plaintiff’s horse entered the defendant land and died

after eating poisonous leaves but since the horse himself entered and plaintiff is at fault, this

defence was used by defendant and he was not held liable. In Rylands v. Fletcher this defence

would not apply because there was no fault on the part of Plaintiff i.e. Fletcher.

Act of God: If damage or escape is caused due to circumstances which are beyond human

foresight this defence of Act of God is used as used in Nichols v. Marsland.24 In Rylands v.

Fletcher this defence would not apply because there were no natural circumstances which could

lead to damage of Reservoir.

Consent of Plaintiff: If the Plaintiff himself gives consent to the defendant or enjoy the benefits

from the non-natural use of land, then the defendant can use this as defence. In Carstair v

Taylor,25 both person were using water from same tank, due to leakage the water destroyed the

goods of Plaintiff. Defendant was not held guilty since plaintiff was beneficiary hence consent

was considered implied. In Rylands v. Fletcher neither the Fletcher gave consent for construction

23 Ponting v. Noakes, 2 Q.B. 281 (1849).24 Nichols v. Marsland, 2 Ex. D. 1 (1876).25 Carstair v Taylor, 6 L.R 217 (1871).

10 | P a g e

of reservoir nor was a beneficiary of it, hence this defence could not have been availed.

Act of Third Party: If the harm has been caused by a third person who is neither defendant

servant nor the defendant have any control on him, and such harm is not foreseeable by

defendant or person engaged, then the defendant can take this defence. In Box v. Jubb26 the

defendant’s reservoir overflowed and caused damage to plaintiff’s property. Overflow was due to

blockage of Stream done by some strangers, Hence court accepted this defence and held

defendant not liable. In Rylands v. Fletcher though this defence could be applied since work of

construction was given to independent contractor but since the contractors were negligence in

sealing pipes, the Rylands was held Liable.

Statutory Authority: If the damage was done by the person who was doing work under a

statute, unless he is not negligent this defence could be taken. In Green v. Chelsea waterworks

Co.27 the defendant had a statutory duty to provide water, a main pipe burst out and damaged

plaintiff’s property but since it was a statuary work defendant is no held liable. In Rylands v.

Fletcher this defence could not be taken since the reservoir was constructed for the personal

benefit of defendant not under any statutory order.

26 Box v. Jubb, 4 Ex. D. 76 (1879).27 Green v. Chelsea waterworks Co., 70 L.T. 547 (1894).

11 | P a g e

EVOLUTION OF STRICT LIABILITY IN INDIA: A FURTHER STEP

Indian Supreme court in 1987 took a step further and further led to the development of a new

rule called as principle of Absolute liability. This rule is derived from the case M.C. Mehta v.

Union of India.28 The case was related to the spread of Oleum gas and harm caused by it. In 1987

there was leak of Oleum Gas from one of the unit of Sriram Foods and Fertilizers Industry in

Delhi29. As a consequence of this leak one person died and several were injured. The incident

happened after the infamous Bhopal gas tragedy case,30 Hence resulted in lot of chaos in Delhi.

The Supreme Court in its judgement said, the rule of strict liability derived from Rylands v.

Fletcher in 19th century was mainly based on the non-natural use of the land, but today in a time

when all there is a huge developments in science and technology same kind of rule can be fitted

in today’s context. At that time there was no such huge nuclear development and chemical

industries but today there are lot of industries and enterprises dealing with inherently dangerous

things, hence Supreme Court came with an advanced version of strict liability called as Absolute

liability.

Any enterprise or manufacturing unit if it is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous

work that contains a potential threat to the health and safety to the persons in the industry, and

residents in the surrounding areas, then the enterprise or manufacturing unit owes an absolute

and inalienable duty to them and must be cautious that due to their hazardous or inherently

dangerous work no harm is caused. The enterprise has a duty that hazardous activity that it is

doing must have the highest standards of safety and if any harm results due to such activity, then

the enterprise or manufacturing unit must be held absolutely liable to compensate for the harm

caused even if the enterprise has taken all the reasonable care and the harm happened without

any negligence of enterprise.31

Hence, Principle of Absolute liability states that, any enterprise engaged in any hazardous or

inherently dangerous activity and if any damage happens due to that any hazardous or inherently

dangerous activity then the enterprise would be Absolutely Liable to the person affected, even if 28 Supra note 329 “M.C. Mehta v. Union of India.” Accessed September 22, 2014.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l265-M.C.-Mehta-v.-Union-of-India.html. 30 Union Carbide Corporation vs Union Of India Etc, AIR 273 (Supreme Court of India 1990).31 “USI of India | An Article by USI,” accessed September 22, 2014,

http://www.usiofindia.org/Article/?pub=Journal&pubno=580&ano=733.

12 | P a g e

all reasonable care was taken and there was neither negligence nor escape of dangerous thing.

The compensation must also be decided in accordance with the capacity of enterprise.32

The basic difference between strict and absolute liability is that to apply strict liability there must

be non-natural use of land but in case of absolute liability any enterprise doing any hazardous or

inherently dangerous work can be held liable, non-natural use of land is immaterial. In strict

liability the escape is required but in absolute liability it is immaterial that escape happened or

not enterprise will be liable. This principle safeguards the right of workers in the factory. Another

distinction between strict liability and absolute liability is that in prior there are number of

defences available but in later no defences are available, moreover in absolute liability

exemplary damages could be awarded thus, benefiting more to victim.

Hence, the concept of absolute liability is a modern extension to the concept of strict liability

developed through 19th century case Rylands v. Fletcher; it has been adopted by many countries

apart from India like Australia,33 Canada34 etc. The principle of Absolute liability is much more

progressive than principle of strict liability. It focuses more on benefiting the victim. Since, the

principle of strict liability was given in 1868 when there was not such developed and industries it

was necessary to give a principle so as to apply it in modern context, Absolute liability was such

principle, given by Supreme Court of India in 1987.

32 “Santosh Kumar Upadhyay vs M.P.State Agricultural ... on 1 April, 2010,” accessed September 22, 2014, http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1603174/.

33 The Australian Criminal Code Act, 1995.34 R. v. City of Sault Ste-Marie, 2 S.C.R. 1299 (1978).

13 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

Rylands v. Fletcher case was one of those fundamental cases from which any general principle.

Principle of strict liability is derived from it. Though it was a case decided in 1898 but still has

relevance today and has not been ruled out till today. Case in the present context often uses this

case as a precedent, example of which is discussed above. This rule of strict liability was further

developed by the English courts, and thus made an immediate and inalienable impact on the law

and the judicial system. Various countries like India, Australia, Scotland and Canada has further

evolved this principle and brought it to new extension and pinnacle.

Prior to the Rylands v Fletcher, courts use to focus more on the intention behind the actions done

rather than the nature of the act itself. Most of the cases were decided on the basis of negligence

or trespass. In contrast, to it, Rylands v. Fletcher imposed strict liability principle on those who

engage in non-natural use of land even without having to prove the existence of the duty of care

or negligence. Though, this liability held a person liable for the fault for which he had no intent

but more than this it safeguards the rights of the person who gets affected by the “non-natural”

use of land by any person. It also ensures that person should not be engaged in non-natural use of

land and if he is engaged in so, he should be held liable for any damage done due to it.

____________________________________________

14 | P a g e