Rylands v Fletcher

Rylands v Fletcher
Court	House of Lords
Full case name	John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher
Decided	17 July 1868
Citation	[1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330
Transcript	Full text of House of Lords decision
Case history
Prior actions	Court of Assize Exchequer of Pleas Court of Exchequer Chamber ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265)
Court membership
Judges sitting	Lord Cairns, LC Lord Cranworth
Case opinions
Lord Cairns, LC Lord Cranworth
Keywords
Strict liability, nuisance

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 and even construed as a "liability rule".^[4][5] 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",^[6] 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.^[7]