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. 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.[1]
Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir on his land. As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage (equivalent to £111,200 in 2023).[2] Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands.[3] At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Baron Bramwell, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in Rylands v Fletcher".
This doctrine was further developed by English courts, and made an immediate impact on the law. Prior to Rylands, English courts had not based their decisions in similar cases on strict liability, and had focused on the intention behind the actions rather than the nature of the actions themselves. In contrast, Rylands imposed strict liability on those found detrimental in such a fashion without having to prove a duty of care or negligence, which brought the law into line with that relating to public reservoirs and marked a significant doctrinal shift. The rule in Rylands has both been distinguished with and regarded as a species of the tort of private nuisance. Unlike ordinary cases of private nuisance, the rule in Rylands requires the escape of a thing that arises from a non-natural use rather than the typical interference emanating from unreasonable use of land. It additionally does not require an act to be continuous, which is typically a requirement for nuisance. Academics[who?] have criticised the rule both for the economic damage such a doctrine could cause and for its limited applicability.
The tort of Rylands v Fletcher has been disclaimed in various jurisdictions, including Scotland, where it was described as "a heresy that ought to be extirpated",[4] and Australia, where the High Court chose to destroy the doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd. 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.[5]
^Bohlen (1911) 300
^UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved 7 May 2024.
^Simpson (1984) 212 & 243
^Cite error: The named reference cam was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Halsbury's Laws of England, volume 78: "The rule in Rylands v Fletcher.", paragraph 148 (5th edition)
and 30 Related for: Rylands v Fletcher information
"Rule in RylandsvFletcher". This doctrine was further developed by English courts, and made an immediate impact on the law. Prior to Rylands, English...
in cases brought under RylandsvFletcher and the general tort of nuisance. It was also significant in implying that Rylands was not an independent tort...
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] UKHL 61 is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in Rylandsv. Fletcher. Transco...
plaintiff's injuries. The claimant also claimed under the principle in RylandsvFletcher, that the ball was a dangerous item that had "escaped" from the cricket...
liability. In Fletcherv. Rylands In the Exchequer Chamber, L.R. 1 Ex. 265, 1866, affirmed in the House of Lords on appeal in Rylandsv. Fletcher L.R. 3 H...
Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd is a tort law case from the High Court of Australia, which decided it would abolish the rule in RylandsvFletcher, and the...
activities. Under the precedent established in the English case of RylandsvFletcher, upon which the Indian doctrine of absolute liability is based, anyone...
vis-à-vis the tortious principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylandsv. Fletcher. In other words, absolute liability is strict liability without any...
[citation needed] An early example of strict liability is the rule RylandsvFletcher, where it was held that "any person who for his own purposes brings...
existence of the rule in RylandsvFletcher. Writers such as John Murphy at Lancaster University have popularised the idea that Rylands forms a separate, though...
successful were they that, in 1819, Rylands' father merged his retail business with theirs, creating the firm of Rylands & Sons. At its peak, the company...
Beloye (Nizhny Novgorod Oblast) List of sinkholes of the United States RylandsvFletcher "Lake Peigneur TMDLS for dissolved oxygen and nutrients" (PDF) (Report)...
apologised after A-level Law Paper Two contained a 30 mark question on RylandsvFletcher and Private nuisance, accounting for 30% of the 100 mark paper, which...
Kingdom, this area of law is governed by the rule established in RylandsvFletcher. Factors determining an activity is ultrahazardous: The relative possibility...
Ltd v Auckland City Council [2000] NZAR 324 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the development of nuisance claims under RylandsvFletcher. As the...
certain strict liability torts, such as liability under the rule in RylandsvFletcher or cattle trespass. In a number of instances, the exercise of the...
Dow Jones v Gutnick is Berezovsky v Michaels in England. Australia's first Twitter defamation case to go to trial is believed to be Mickle v Farley. The...
the Ernst water well. The claim is supported by the rule in RylandsvFletcher. Ernst v Alberta Energy Regulator CanLII - 2013 ABQB 537 (CanLII) Supreme...
v Papakura District Council (New Zealand) [2002] UKPC 9 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding liability under tort for negligence under Rylandsv Fletcher...
to the family member with legal control over them. For example, in Baker v Bolton (1808) 1 Camp 493, a man was permitted to recover for his loss of consortium...
writing. In Read v Lyons (1947), (where a munitions worker was injured in a factory explosion), the court distinguished RylandsvFletcher (1868) because...
OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [1997] 3 All E.R. 897 is an English court case concerned with negligence from the King's Bench Division of...
adopted by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, in which the Warren Court held that: The constitutional guarantees...
"Tolbert v. Gulsby". Casemine. Retrieved 2022-03-02. "Spur Feeding Co. v. Fernandez". Caselaw Access Project. Retrieved 2022-04-04. "Louisville N. R. Co. v. Vaughn"...
wild regardless of its use. The scienter action is referred to in Rylandsv. Fletcher in that one who keeps a wild thing "must keep it at his peril" to...
RylandFletcher (February 18, 1799 – December 19, 1885) was an American farmer, politician, the 20th lieutenant governor of Vermont from 1854 to 1856...
Ratcliffe v. Plymouth & Torbay Health Authority, 1998 "6 HKCFAR 207", Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v. Li Kai Cheong, 2003 "200 CLR 121", Schellenberg v. Tunnel...
Global Information