Rylands v Fletcher is an 1868 decision of the House of Lords that established the tort of strict liability for the escape of dangerous things from land. Contractors hired by Fletcher built a reservoir on his land that burst and flooded through disused mine shafts into Rylands neighboring coal mine. The House of Lords held that a person who brings onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes, and keeps it there, is answerable for all the damage that is the natural consequence of its escape, regardless of whether they were negligent. The rule created a distinct category of liability for non-natural, hazardous uses of land, separate from ordinary negligence, and it remains a foundation of English and Commonwealth tort law on escaping hazards.
Facts
Decision Year Decision Date HoldingEstablished that a person's non-natural use of land that leads to another's land being damaged by dangerous things emanating from it carries strict liability. 2 Current StatusRemains valid law in England and Wales, though since Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather and Transco v Stockport it is treated as a sub-tort of nuisance rather than an independent tort; it has been rejected outright in Scotland and Australia. 2 Case Status
Case Status (category) Connections
Decided By
Source Rylands v Fletcher (Wikipedia)
In Legal System
In the Other Atlases
Found In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject is found.
Sources
1. Wikidata: Rylands v Fletcher
Source: established the strict-liability rule in English tort law, still the leading authorityView the Source 2. Rylands v Fletcher (Wikipedia)
WikipediaLead section, opening sentence
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law.
Lead section, second sentence
It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
Closing paragraph, on jurisdictional treatment
Within England and Wales, however, Rylands remains valid law, although the decisions in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council make it clear that it is no longer an independent tort, but instead a sub-tort of nuisance.
Infobox, date decided field
17 July 1868
- Decided By: Judicial functions of the House of Lords, Infobox court field: House of Lords
In Group: Negligence and Strict Liability Tort Cases, Introduction, sentence 2
It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
View the Source Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.