## Facts

- The defendants, Rylands and Horrocks, constructed a reservoir on their land to supply water to a mill.
- The reservoir was unknowingly built over abandoned mine shafts that connected to the plaintiff Fletcher’s coal mines.
- Upon filling the reservoir, water escaped through these shafts, flooding and causing significant damage to Fletcher’s mines.
- Fletcher sued for damages, arguing that the defendants were liable for the escape of water onto his property.
- The Court of Exchequer initially ruled in favour of the defendants, finding no negligence.
- The Court of Exchequer Chamber reversed this, imposing liability under strict liability principles.
- The House of Lords affirmed the decision, establishing the doctrine now known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

## Issues

1. Whether a person who lawfully brings or accumulates a potentially dangerous thing on their land is strictly liable for its escape and resulting damage, even without negligence.
2. Whether the construction and operation of a reservoir constituted a "non-natural use" of land, giving rise to strict liability.
3. The parameters and limitations of strict liability in the context of harm caused by the escape of substances from land.

## Decision

- The House of Lords affirmed that anyone who brings or keeps anything likely to do mischief if it escapes on their land is strictly liable for any damage caused by its escape.
- It was held that strict liability applies even in the absence of negligence, provided the activity constitutes a "non-natural use" of land.
- The defendants were held liable for the damage caused by the escape of water from the reservoir.
- The judgment set clear limitations, emphasizing that strict liability applies only to non-natural or unusual use of land.

## Legal Principles

- The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous substances brought onto land by the occupier.
- Liability arises irrespective of negligence, provided there is a "non-natural use" of land.
- "Non-natural use" is defined as a use that is not ordinary or customary for the property, typically involving artificial accumulation and heightened risk.
- The principle is limited to harm resulting directly from the escape of substances; it does not extend to all land-related harms.
- Judicial interpretation of "non-natural use" considers the scale, context, and purpose of the activity.
- Foreseeability of harm and control over the substance are central to determining liability within this framework.

## Conclusion

Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 established and clarified the strict liability rule for non-natural uses of land, providing an important precedent in English tort law for addressing harm caused by the escape of hazardous substances. The doctrine has shaped subsequent legal developments involving environmental and industrial risks, though debates persist concerning its application and scope.
