## Facts

- Thomas Fletcher operated working coal mines under lease on land adjoining a mill site.
- John Rylands (with his partner Jehu Horrocks) owned and operated a mill and decided to build an artificial reservoir on adjacent land to supply water to the mill.
- Rylands hired a competent engineer and independent contractors to design and construct the reservoir.
- Unknown to Rylands, the reservoir site lay above several old, disused vertical mineshafts that had previously been filled with dirt or marl.
- The old shafts connected to underground passages and abandoned workings that in turn connected to the area of Fletcher’s active mines.
- When water was introduced into the completed reservoir in December 1860, one of the old shafts beneath the reservoir gave way, allowing water to break into the underground workings.
- The water travelled through the old mines and passages and ultimately inundated Fletcher’s operating mines, forcing Fletcher to suspend and abandon operations.
- Fletcher sued Rylands for damages.
- The Court of Exchequer concluded Rylands had not been negligent and ruled for Rylands; Fletcher appealed to the Exchequer Chamber.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land and keeps there a potentially harmful thing is liable for damage caused by its escape even without proof of negligence.
2. Whether the defendant avoids liability by showing he employed competent engineers and independent contractors and lacked knowledge of latent subsoil defects (old mine shafts).

## Decision

- The Exchequer Chamber reversed the Court of Exchequer and held for Fletcher.
- The court held that Rylands was prima facie liable for the natural consequences of the escape of the accumulated water, even absent personal negligence.
- The court rejected reliance on competent contractors or lack of knowledge of the concealed shafts as a complete defense to liability for the escape.

## Legal Principles

- A person who, for his own purposes, brings onto his land and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it confined at his peril.
- If that thing escapes, the keeper is prima facie answerable for all damage that is the natural consequence of the escape, without the plaintiff having to prove negligence.
- The duty is not satisfied merely by showing reasonable care in construction or operation; employing competent engineers and independent contractors does not, by itself, defeat liability for an escape.
- The rule is subject to recognized excuses (for example, where the escape is due to the plaintiff’s own fault, or other limited exceptional causes traditionally treated as beyond the defendant’s responsibility).

## Conclusion

In *Fletcher v. Rylands* (Exchequer Chamber 1866), the court restored judgment for the flooded mine operator and announced that a landowner who accumulates a dangerous thing on land for his own purposes bears an absolute obligation to keep it in; when the reservoir water escaped through unknown mine shafts and damaged neighboring mines, liability followed as a natural consequence even though the defendant used competent contractors and was not personally negligent.


Fletcher v. Rylands, [1866] L.R. 1 Ex. 265 (1866)