Learning Outcomes
This article examines the essential components required to establish liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. For the SQE1 assessment, you will need to identify the circumstances giving rise to this specific tort, including the defendant bringing something onto land, its potential for mischief, the concept of non-natural use, the necessity of an escape, and the required foreseeability of damage. This knowledge will equip you to analyse factual scenarios and apply the rule correctly in multiple-choice questions.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, it is necessary to understand the distinct requirements of a claim under Rylands v Fletcher and its relationship with, and differences from, negligence and nuisance. You may be assessed on your ability to apply the rule's specific elements to given facts to determine potential liability.
As you work through this article, focus your revision on:
- The defendant accumulating a thing on their land for their own purposes.
- The requirement that the accumulated thing is likely to cause damage if it escapes.
- The meaning and application of 'non-natural use' of land.
- The necessity of an actual 'escape' from the defendant's land.
- The rule that the damage caused must be of a foreseeable type.
- Recognising that liability under this rule is strict, but not absolute.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
Liability under Rylands v Fletcher arises from which of the following?
- Unreasonable interference with the claimant's enjoyment of land.
- A breach of a duty to take reasonable care.
- The escape of something likely to do mischief from the defendant's land during a non-natural use.
- Direct and intentional interference with the claimant's land.
-
Which element was added to the original rule in Rylands v Fletcher by the House of Lords?
- The thing must be likely to do mischief.
- There must be an escape.
- The use of land must be non-natural.
- Damage must be caused.
-
True or False? Personal injury is recoverable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Introduction
The rule originating from the case of Rylands v Fletcher [1868] LR 3 HL 330 establishes a specific basis for liability in tort, distinct from negligence and nuisance, although sharing some characteristics with the latter. It imposes strict liability on an occupier of land for damage caused by the escape of something dangerous accumulated on their land as part of a 'non-natural' use. Understanding the precise elements required to found a claim under this rule is essential for SQE1.
Elements of the Rule
The rule, as formulated by Blackburn J and refined by Lord Cairns in the House of Lords, requires several conditions to be met for liability to arise.
1. Bringing onto land and accumulation
The defendant must, for their own purposes, bring onto their land and collect or keep there the thing which subsequently escapes. The rule does not apply to things that are naturally present on the land or accumulate naturally.
Key Term: Accumulation
The defendant must voluntarily bring onto land and keep there the substance or item that escapes. It does not apply to things naturally on the land.
This requirement was central in Rylands itself, where the defendants had the reservoir constructed, accumulating a large body of water. If, for example, rainwater naturally collects on land and escapes, liability under this rule would not arise.
2. Likely to do mischief if it escapes
The thing accumulated need not be inherently dangerous, but it must be something which is likely to cause damage ('do mischief') if it escapes.
Key Term: Likely to do Mischief
The accumulated substance or item must pose a foreseeable risk of causing damage should it escape from the defendant's land.
Water, electricity, gas, chemicals, fumes, and even vibrations have been held to satisfy this condition. The assessment is based on the potential for harm upon escape, not the nature of the substance while contained.
3. Non-natural use of land
Lord Cairns added the requirement that the defendant's use of the land must be 'non-natural'. This concept has proven difficult to define precisely and has evolved. Originally interpreted quite broadly, the modern understanding, following Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2004] 2 AC 1, is that the use must be extraordinary and unusual, bringing with it an increased danger, beyond the ordinary uses of land or uses for the general benefit of the community.
Key Term: Non-Natural Use
A use of land that goes beyond the ordinary and involves bringing or accumulating something that presents an exceptional risk due to its nature or quantity.
In Transco, piping water for domestic supply to a block of flats was held to be a natural use. Storing large quantities of industrial chemicals or explosives might be considered non-natural, but ordinary industrial activities generally are not. Context, including the time and location, is relevant.
4. Escape
There must be an 'escape' of the accumulated thing from the defendant's land or control to a place outside their control, often the claimant's land.
Key Term: Escape
The substance or thing must move from premises controlled by the defendant to premises outside their control.
Damage caused while the thing is still contained within the defendant's property does not satisfy this element. In Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd [1947] AC 156, an explosion within a munitions factory injuring an inspector on site was not an escape. Similarly, fire spreading from tyres stored on the defendant's land was not an escape of the tyres themselves (Stannard v Gore [2012] EWCA Civ 1248).
5. Damage of a foreseeable type
The escape must cause damage. Following Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 264, the damage caused must be of a type that was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the escape. This aligns the rule with the remoteness principles seen in negligence and nuisance.
Key Term: Foreseeable Damage
The type of harm caused by the escape must be reasonably foreseeable, even if the escape itself was not due to the defendant's fault.
Liability remains strict regarding the escape (no need to prove fault for the escape), but the damage resulting from the escape must be foreseeable. Furthermore, as confirmed in Transco, recoverable damage is limited to harm to land or interests in land (like property damage). Pure economic loss and personal injury are not recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher.
Worked Example 1.1
Ahmed operates a chemical processing plant. He stores large quantities of acidic chemicals in vats on his site, which is adjacent to Fatima's farm. Due to a fault in one vat, acid leaks, escapes onto Fatima's land, and destroys her prize-winning vegetable patch.
Is Ahmed likely to be liable to Fatima under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
Answer: Yes, Ahmed is likely to be liable.
- Accumulation: Ahmed deliberately accumulated the acidic chemicals on his land.
- Likely to do mischief: Acidic chemicals are clearly likely to cause damage if they escape.
- Non-natural use: Storing large quantities of industrial acid could well be considered a non-natural use carrying exceptional risk.
- Escape: The acid escaped from Ahmed's land onto Fatima's land.
- Damage: The escape caused foreseeable physical damage to Fatima's property (vegetable patch).
Exam Warning
Remember that Rylands v Fletcher does not cover personal injury. If a claimant suffers personal injury due to an escape, they must pursue a claim in negligence, proving duty, breach, and causation in the normal way. Do not confuse the type of damage recoverable under this rule with that recoverable in negligence or public nuisance.
Revision Tip
Focus on distinguishing Rylands v Fletcher from private nuisance. Key differences include:
- Rylands can apply to isolated escapes; nuisance usually requires a continuous or recurring state of affairs.
- Rylands requires accumulation and non-natural use; nuisance requires unreasonable interference.
- Foreseeability of escape is irrelevant for Rylands (strict liability for escape), but foreseeability of the type of damage is required. Foreseeability of harm is central to establishing nuisance based on personal discomfort.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes liability for damage caused by the escape of a thing likely to do mischief, brought onto land and accumulated for a non-natural use.
- The defendant must bring the thing onto the land and accumulate it; natural accumulations are excluded.
- The thing must be likely to cause damage if it escapes.
- The use of land must be non-natural, involving exceptional risk judged by current standards.
- There must be an escape from the defendant's control to a place outside their control.
- The escape must cause damage to land or property interests; personal injury is not recoverable under this rule.
- The type of damage caused must have been reasonably foreseeable.
- Liability is strict concerning the escape, but fault may be relevant to defences.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Accumulation
- Likely to do Mischief
- Non-Natural Use
- Escape
- Foreseeable Damage
