Facts
- The claimant, a business tenant, suffered damage when water escaped from upper floors of a building owned by the defendant.
- The water escape resulted from a third party maliciously blocking sinks and turning on taps, causing flooding.
- The claimant sought to impose strict liability on the defendant under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, which holds landowners liable when something likely to cause harm escapes from their land.
- The case required determining whether the supply of water for domestic purposes was a “non-natural use” of land and whether liability could attach despite malicious third-party acts.
Issues
- Whether the provision of domestic water supply by the defendant constituted a "non-natural use" of land under the Rylands v Fletcher rule.
- Whether a building owner is strictly liable for damage caused by the escape of water when the escape resulted from the malicious act of an unknown third party.
- The extent to which strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher applies when the immediate cause of harm is outside the defendant’s control.
Decision
- The Privy Council found that supplying water for domestic or ordinary building use is a "natural use" of land and does not incur strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
- The court held the defendant was not liable, as the immediate cause of the escape was a malicious act by a third party, for which the defendant could not reasonably be held responsible.
- The judgment reinforced that strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher is limited when the causal chain is broken by external, deliberate, and wrongful intervention.
Legal Principles
- The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability upon those who, for their own purposes, accumulate dangerous substances on their land and those substances escape.
- Liability attaches only to “non-natural” or unusual uses of land; common uses that benefit the community (e.g. domestic water supply) are excluded.
- A defendant is not liable under Rylands v Fletcher for escapes caused by malicious or wrongful acts of third parties outside their control.
- The immediate and direct cause of the damage must be the defendant’s activity or omission, not the independent act of a third party.
- The case distinguishes strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher from ordinary negligence, as no negligence is required but certain defenses apply.
- Later cases (e.g. Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather) clarify further limitations, such as the requirement of reasonable foreseeability and characterisation of non-natural use, but these developments postdate Rickards v Lothian and highlight its framework.
Conclusion
Rickards v Lothian establishes key limitations on strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher, confirming that ordinary uses of land are not “non-natural” and that liability does not arise where escape is caused by a malicious third party, ensuring that landowners are only held responsible for harm directly resulting from their actions or omissions within their control.
