## 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

1. Whether the provision of domestic water supply by the defendant constituted a "non-natural use" of land under the Rylands v Fletcher rule.
2. 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.
3. 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.

Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263 (PC)