Rule of Strict Liability (Rylands v. Fletcher)

In one minute

Under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, a person who brings and keeps something dangerous on his land for his own purposes must keep it in at his own risk. If it escapes and causes damage, he is liable even if he was not careless.

This is strict liability. It has four essentials and several defences. In exams it is a long answer, often with a problem on a reservoir, a gas leak or a fire. The Indian rule of absolute liability grew out of it.

Legal provision

• No statute states the rule. It is a rule of common law, from the House of Lords in 1868.
• Article 21, Constitution of India: the Supreme Court has used the right to life to extend liability for hazardous activities.
• Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: statutes that now give no-fault relief for accidents with hazardous substances and harm to the environment.
• Section 164, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: an example of statutory no-fault compensation, not linked to the rule.

Meaning and definition

The rule was stated by Blackburn J in the Court of Exchequer Chamber in 1866 and affirmed by the House of Lords in 1868. It says that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril. If he does not, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

In the House of Lords, Lord Cairns added a condition: the land must be put to a "non-natural use". The rule is strict liability because the claimant does not have to prove negligence.

The facts of Rylands v. Fletcher

Mill owners built a reservoir on their land through an engineer and contractors. Old, filled-up coal shafts lay under the site, and nobody knew of them. When the reservoir was filled, the water broke through the shafts and flooded the neighbour's mine. The owners were held liable although they took no part in the work and knew nothing of the shafts.

Detailed explanation

Step 1: the four essentials

1. A dangerous thing. The thing must be likely to do mischief if it escapes. Water in large quantity, gas, electricity, fire, explosives and poisonous plants have all counted.
2. Brought, collected and kept on the defendant's land for his own purposes. The thing must not be naturally there. Use of land must be non-natural, meaning a special use that brings increased danger to others. In Rickards v. Lothian (1913), the Privy Council said that ordinary domestic water supply is not a non-natural use.
3. Escape. The thing must escape from the defendant's land to a place beyond his control. In Read v. J. Lyons & Co. (1947), the House of Lords held that an explosion inside a munitions factory that injured an inspector there was not an escape.
4. Damage. The claimant must show damage caused by the escape. In England, the House of Lords in Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather (1994) held that the damage must be of a kind the defendant could reasonably foresee. In Transco v. Stockport MBC (2003) it said personal injury cannot be recovered under the rule.

1. 1. Did the defendant bring and keep a dangerous thing on his land for his own purposes?No: the rule does not apply. A thing naturally on the land is not covered.
2. 2. Was it a non-natural use of land?No: ordinary use of land is not covered (Rickards v. Lothian).
3. 3. Did the thing escape beyond the defendant's control?No: no escape, no liability (Read v. J. Lyons & Co.).
4. 4. Did the escape cause foreseeable damage to the claimant?No: no liability (Cambridge Water Co.).
5. 5. Does a defence apply?If none applies, the defendant is liable without proof of negligence.

Step 2: who can sue and be sued

• The defendant is the person who controls the land and collects the thing, whether an owner or an occupier.
• Traditionally the claimant must have an interest in land that was affected. English law now limits the rule to damage to property, not personal injury (Transco).

Step 3: the defences

• Consent of the claimant. If the claimant agreed to the thing being kept there, or if it was kept for the common benefit of both, there is no liability (Carstairs v. Taylor, 1871).
• Default of the claimant. If the claimant's own act caused the harm, he cannot recover. In Ponting v. Noakes (1894), a horse reached over a boundary, ate the defendant's poisonous yew, and died. The owner could not recover, because the horse had entered on its own.
• Act of God. An extraordinary natural event, as in Nichols v. Marsland (1876), defeats the claim.
• Act of a stranger. If a third person, not under the defendant's control, caused the escape, the defendant is not liable, unless he ought to have foreseen it (Box v. Jubb, 1879).
• Statutory authority. If a statute authorises the activity and the escape was an inevitable result, there is no liability (Green v. Chelsea Waterworks Co., 1894).

Step 4: the Indian position

• Early Indian cases showed caution. In Madras Railway Co. v. Zamindar of Carvatenagaram (1874), the Privy Council refused to apply the rule to the bursting of irrigation tanks, which are necessary in India and are not an unusual use of land.
• In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court said that the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher is not suited to modern industrial conditions. It created a stricter rule of absolute liability for hazardous or inherently dangerous activity, with no exceptions.
• Rylands v. Fletcher is therefore still cited for non-hazardous cases and for its principles. In hazardous industry, the Indian rule of absolute liability applies, as in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996).

Don't confuse: strict liability and negligence

Students often write that Rylands v. Fletcher needs carelessness. It does not.

Point	Strict liability (Rylands v. Fletcher)	Negligence
Fault	Not needed	Needed: failure to take reasonable care
Basis	A non-natural use of land and the escape of a dangerous thing	Breach of a duty of care
Does reasonable care help?	No	Yes. It defeats the claim
Defences	Consent, claimant's default, act of God, act of a stranger, statutory authority	No breach, contributory negligence, general defences

Common mistakes

• Writing that negligence must be proved. The rule is strict.
• Forgetting "non-natural use". Ordinary use of land is not covered.
• Applying the rule where nothing has escaped. There must be escape beyond the defendant's control.
• Treating strict liability and absolute liability as the same. Strict liability has defences, and absolute liability has none.
• Saying the rule gives damages for personal injury in England today. Transco says it does not.

Apply it

Leading case laws

• Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

  Facts. A mill owner's reservoir burst through old mine shafts and flooded a neighbour's mine.

  Principle. A person who keeps a mischievous thing on his land for his own purposes must keep it in at his peril. The use of land must be non-natural.

  Why it matters. The origin of strict liability for the escape of dangerous things.

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case) (1987)

  Facts. Oleum gas leaked from a Delhi factory and killed a person nearby.

  Principle. The Supreme Court declined to follow Rylands v. Fletcher. It created absolute liability for hazardous industry, with no exceptions.

  Why it matters. It marks the Indian departure from the English rule.

• Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India (1996)

  Facts. Chemical plants in Bichhri village left toxic sludge that polluted wells and soil.

  Principle. The Supreme Court followed absolute liability and the polluter pays principle.

  Why it matters. It applies the Indian rule to pollution.

How to write this answer in the exam

Key points to remember

• Rule: bring and keep a dangerous thing on your land for your own purposes, and keep it in at your peril.
• Essentials: dangerous thing, non-natural use, escape, damage.
• No proof of negligence is needed.
• Defences: consent, claimant's default, act of God, act of a stranger, statutory authority.
• England now limits the rule to property damage and requires foreseeability (Cambridge Water, Transco).
• India: M.C. Mehta replaced it, for hazardous industry, with absolute liability.

Quick self-test

Related topics

• Liability without fault
• General Defences to an action in Torts
• Rule of Absolute Liability (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)
• Nuisance - Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance