I Year B.A., LL. B (Div.

-D and E) – Semester-I (2020)

1st -Internal Assessment

Legal Research Writing

Rylands v. Fletcher {1868}

NAME: Geetanjali Dhillon

DIVISION: ‘D’

PRN: 20010125387

COURSE: BA LL.B. (H)

BATCH: 2020-2025
Facts:

Fletcher, the plaintiff, was the occupier of a mine, who got this coal mine with the permission
of the land owner, Lord Witto, on lease.

Rylands, the defendant, were the owner of a nearby situated land and wanted to make a
reservoir for the purpose of storing water to be used for their mill. The site chosen however,
was above old mines with disused works and passages. Adjoined to those passages were
horizontal and vertical shafts. These shafts were overlooked by the constructors and
engineers hired by the defendant while building the reservoir. The same shafts had come into
contact with the plaintiff mines as they had gradually worked through the seams of coal under
the earth. Once the reservoir was filled, these shafts broke down and water leaked through
them causing disruption and damages to the workings of the mines owned by the plaintiff.

On the basis of the above facts, the plaintiff sued the defendants for the damages caused to
their mines.

Procedural History:

The Trial Court’s decision was in favor of the plaintiff but this judgment was reversed by the
Court of Exchequer ruling that Rylands having no knowledge of the connection of the shafts
to Fletcher’s mines, wasn’t negligence. However, this ruling was again reversed by the
Exchequer Chamber.

Issues:

The main issues which arose from this case were:-

 Whether the defendants were liable, irrespective of proof of negligence on their own
part or on the part of any other engaged by them, to erect the reservoir.
 Whether the defendants, though innocent on their own part for negligence, were
liable for the negligence of the contractor they hired to construct the reservoir.
 Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover on these grounds?
Held:

The Court of Exchequer Chamber held the defendant liable and the House of Lords affirmed
their decision.

Rule:

The rule in this case revolved around Strict Liability.

In the Court of Exchequer Chamber, when the case was brought forth by the plaintiff after the
ruling had been made against them earlier, the defendant was held liable. Mr. Justice
Blackburn announced the view of the court and laid down the broad principle which is now
known as ‘The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher’. It states that, "the person who, for his own
purpose, brings on his lands and collects (non-natural use) and keeps there anything likely to
do mischief, if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie
answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse
himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default, or, perhaps, that the
escape was the consequence of vis major.

Liability for negligence arises when one person who owes a duty of care to another breaches
the duty of care due to a causation and damages occur. Negligence under tort law is defined
as a failure to exercise appropriate and ethical care which is expected to be practiced in
specified circumstances. The principle of strict liability will be applied and even if the
defendant has taken sufficient measures to ensure the safety, he will be held liable under strict
liability.

It has been derived from the Roman Law maxim ‘sie utere two ut alienium non laedas’,
which means, enjoy your property in such a way that it does not harm any other person.

Vicarious liability, a form of strict liability, is also briefly discussed here. Employers are
vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by
their employees in the course of employment.

Analysis:

It was observed that when the case was brought forward in the Court of Exchequer, Pollock,
C. B., Martin and Channell, B. B., declared to the defendants to be not guilty of negligence.
Their opinion was that Rylands shouldn’t be held liable for the harm done by the leaking of
the reservoir since they themselves weren’t aware of the situation and had in fact done their
part by hiring reliable engineers and construction officers. However, Bramwell and B.,
argued that it was the right of the plaintiff to enjoy his land without any foreign nuisance
occurring to it or any harm and thus, they were entitled to get recovery by the defendants.

The matter when came to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, which consisted of Wilies,
Blackburn, Keating, Mellor, Montague Smith and Lush, JJ., the defendant was held liable.
Mr. Justice Blackburn gave the view of the court which I’ve mentioned earlier and spoke
about how they felt that the first point of the discussion should be the liability of the
defendants. They concluded that since the building of the reservoir was a non-natural use of
land and water, thus, the responsibility of ensuring the safety of all those who can even
possibly be affected by it, falls on the defendants. However, if the leakage of this non-natural
usage of water could be proved by the defendant to be due to an act of god, that is un-
foreseeable, the defendant could be excused but that wasn’t the situation there.

In this way, the issue of ‘whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recovery or not’ didn’t
require a discussion.

The House of Lords upon an appeal agreed with this decision and adopted the principal laid
by Mr. Justice Blackburn.

Conclusion:

The lower court judgment was thus, affirmed, stating in essence that the Defendant’s use of
the land was unreasonable, engaged in without proper caution, and resulted in harm to the
Plaintiff.

Rylands v. Fletcher was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of
English tort law. The ‘right to enjoy property’ doctrine was further developed by English
courts, and made an immediate impact on the law.

Prior to Rylands V. Fletcher, 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.