**Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263** is a notable case in English tort law concerning the

principle of strict liability established in *Rylands v Fletcher* and the concept of non-natural use
of land.

### Case Summary

#### Facts
The plaintiff, Rickards, was a tenant in a building owned by the defendant, Lothian. Water from a
lavatory on an upper floor of the building overflowed due to the interference of an unknown third
party who intentionally blocked the sink and turned on the taps. This caused damage to Rickards’
property on a lower floor.

Rickards sued Lothian, claiming that Lothian should be held strictly liable for the damage under
the principle established in *Rylands v Fletcher*.

#### Issue
The main issue was whether Lothian could be held strictly liable for the damage caused by the
water overflow under the principle of *Rylands v Fletcher*, specifically whether the
maintenance of a lavatory in a commercial building constituted a “non-natural” use of land.

#### Judgment
The Privy Council ruled in favor of the defendant, Lothian. The court held that the principle of
*Rylands v Fletcher* did not apply in this case. The maintenance of a lavatory in a commercial
building was considered a “natural” use of the land, not a “non-natural” use.

The court also emphasized that the overflow was caused by the malicious act of a third party,
which was an unforeseeable event for which the defendant could not be held strictly liable.

### Key Principles

 1. **Natural vs. Non-Natural Use of Land**: The court distinguished between “natural”
and “non-natural” use of land. In this case, maintaining a lavatory in a commercial
building was deemed a natural use, which is typically part of normal everyday activities
and does not attract strict liability under *Rylands v Fletcher*.

2. **Acts of Third Parties**: The court highlighted that strict liability does not extend to
situations where the damage is caused by the unforeseeable malicious actions of third
parties. The defendant cannot be held liable for such acts if they have not failed in their
duty of care.

3. **Foreseeability and Control**: The judgment stressed that liability under *Rylands v
Fletcher* requires that the defendant has control over the land and that the use of the land
is such that it creates a foreseeable risk of harm if something escapes.

### Significance
**Rickards v Lothian** is significant because it clarifies and limits the scope of the principle of
strict liability established in *Rylands v Fletcher*. The case provides important guidance on what
constitutes “non-natural” use of land and emphasizes that strict liability does not apply to
damages caused by unforeseeable acts of third parties. This decision has been influential in
shaping the application of strict liability in subsequent tort cases.