Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 House of Lords

The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. The
reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the reservoir
filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working
mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage.
Held:
The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by a nonnatural use of land.
Lord Cranworth:
If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should
escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it
does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he
may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent
the damage.
Lord Cairns LC:
The Defendants, treating them as the owners or occupiers of the close on
which the reservoir was constructed, might lawfully have used that close
for any purpose for which it might in the ordinary course of the enjoyment
of land be used; and if, in what I may term the natural user of that land,
there had been any accumulation of water, either on the surface or
underground, and if, by the operation of the laws of nature, that
accumulation of water had passed off into the close occupied by the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could not have complained that that result had taken
place. If he had desired to guard himself against it, it would have lain upon
him to have done so, by leaving, or by interposing, some barrier between
his close and the close of the Defendants in order to have prevented that
operation of the laws of natureOn the other hand if the Defendants, not
stopping at the natural use of their close, had desired to use it for any
purpose which I may term a non-natural use, for the purpose of
introducing into the close that which in its natural condition was not in or
upon it, for the purpose of introducing water either above or below ground
in quantities and in a manner not the result of any work or operation on or
under the land, - and if in consequence of their doing so, or in
consequence of any imperfection in the mode of their doing so, the water
came to escape and to pass off into the close of the Plaintiff, then it
appears to me that that which the Defendants were doing they were doing
at their own peril; and, if in the course of their doing it, the evil arose to
which I have referred, the evil, namely, of the escape of the water and its
passing away to the close of the Plaintiff and injuring the Plaintiff, then for
the consequence of that, in my opinion, the Defendants would be liable.

Consent

Peters v Prince of Wales Theatre

The claimant leased a shop adjacent to a theatre from the defendant, the
owner of the theatre. The claimants shop sustained flood damage when
pipes from the theatres sprinkler system burst due to icy weather
conditions. The claimant brought an action based on liability under .
Held:
The defendant was not liable. The sprinkler system was equally for the
benefit of the claimant and the claimant was deemed to have consented
to the use of the sprinkler system since it had been installed prior to him
obtaining the lease.
Box v jubb act of stranger

The defendant had a reservoir on their land. There was another reservoir
situated at a higher level than the defendants. The owner of this other
reservoir emptied it through a drain connected to the defendants
reservoir causing the defendants reservoir to overflow and damage the
claimants land. The claimant brought an action under Rylands v Fletcher
contending that there was a non natural user of the land and that there
had been an escape of water that caused damage.
Held:
The defendant was not liable for the damage as it was caused by the act
of a third party over which the defendant had no control.

Wrongful act of a third party

LMS International v Styrene Packaging and Insulation

A fire started in the defendants factory. The factory contained a large

quantity of flammable material. The fire services arrived within 5 minutes
of being alerted, however, the fire spread to the claimants adjoining
property. The claimant brought an action based on Rylands v Fletcher,
nuisance and negligence.
Held:
The defendant was liable under the principle in Rylands v Fletcher as it
had accumulated things which were a known fire risk. They were stored in
a position close to hot wire cutting machines which made ignition more
likely and where any fire was likely to spread. The storage represented a
recognisable risk to the claimant and a non-natural user of the land. The
defendant was also liable in negligence and nuisance.

Nichols v Marsland act of state

The defendant diverted a natural stream on his land to create ornamental

lakes. Exceptionally heavy rain caused the artificial lakes and waterways
to be flooded and damage adjoining land. The defendant was held not
liable under Rylands v Fletcher as the cause of the flood was an act of
God.
Mellish LJ:
Now the jury have distinctly found, not only that there was no negligence
in the construction or the maintenance of the reservoirs, but that the flood
was so great that it could not reasonably have been anticipated, although,
if it had been anticipated, the effect might have been prevented; and this
seems to us in substance a finding that the escape of the water was owing
to the act of God. However great the flood had been, if it had not been
greater than floods that had happened before and might be expected to
occur again, the defendant might not have made out that she was free
from fault; but we think she ought not to be held liable because she did
not prevent the effect of an extraordinary act of nature, which she could
not anticipate.

Ponting v Noakes (1849) 2 QB 281 plAintiff the wrongdoer

The claimants horse died after it had reached over the defendants fence
and ate some leaves from a Yew tree. The defendant was not liable
underRylands v Fletcher as the Yew tree was entirely in the confines of the
defendants land and there had therefore been no escape.
Charles, J:
"I do not see that they can be made responsible for the eating of these
Yew leaves by an animal which, in order to reach them, had come upon his
land. The hurt which the animal received was due to his wrongful
intrusion. He had no right to be there and the owner therefore has no right
to complain."
Statuory act

Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co (1894) 70 LT 547

A water main burst causing damage to the claimants land. Chelsea
Waterworks co were under a statutory obligation to maintain high
pressure in the water main. This would mean that any escape would
inevitably cause damage. They were not liable under Rylands v Fletcher as
they had the defence of statutory authority.