## Facts

- Cambridge Water Co operated a water borehole supplying drinking water.
- Eastern Counties Leather plc ran a tannery near the borehole and used the chemical perchloroethene (PCE) in its operations.
- Over time, PCE seeped into the ground and contaminated the borehole, affecting Cambridge Water Co's water supply.
- The distance between the tannery and the borehole was considerable.
- Cambridge Water Co claimed damages, invoking the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, for contamination of its water supply alleged to result from the escape of a dangerous substance due to non-natural use of the land by Eastern Counties Leather.

## Issues

1. Whether strict liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher applies to the escape and consequent damage caused by hazardous substances from a defendant’s land.
2. Whether the damage suffered by Cambridge Water Co was reasonably foreseeable at the time the substance was brought onto the defendant’s land.
3. Whether foreseeability of damage is a necessary component for liability under Rylands v Fletcher.

## Decision

- The House of Lords affirmed that while the Rylands v Fletcher rule imposes strict liability, it requires that the type of damage caused must be reasonably foreseeable.
- It was held that the specific contamination to the borehole at a considerable distance was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the PCE was brought onto the land.
- As a result, Cambridge Water Co's claim failed and damages were not awarded.
- The decision significantly restricted the scope of Rylands v Fletcher by incorporating the concept of foreseeability from negligence law.

## Legal Principles

- Strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher requires the accumulation of a hazardous substance as a non-natural use of land and its subsequent escape.
- Foreseeability of the specific type of damage is necessary for liability under Rylands v Fletcher, shifting the rule closer to negligence principles.
- The concept of “non-natural use” speaks to conduct on land that is unusual, extraordinary, or poses increased risk to others.
- Liability for personal injury is excluded from Rylands v Fletcher; the rule applies to property damage resulting from escape.
- Later decisions, including Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1, reaffirm that the activity conducted must be extraordinary, and non-natural use is measured by the risk posed to others.
- Distinction from nuisance: nuisance generally deals with ongoing interferences, while Rylands v Fletcher focuses on isolated escapes; both now require foreseeability of damage.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords decision in Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc established that foreseeability of harm is a prerequisite for strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher, thus restricting the rule’s application and drawing it closer to negligence, while confirming its relevance where hazardous substances escape due to non-natural use of land.


Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264 (HL)