## **Learning Outcomes**

This article examines liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher for SQE1 purposes, including:

- Clear identification of all elements of the rule (bringing onto land and accumulation, likelihood to do mischief if it escapes, non‑natural use, escape, and foreseeability of the type of damage) and how examiners typically test each element in problem questions.
- Accurate recognition of the limited scope of recoverable loss (damage to land and proprietary interests only, excluding personal injury and pure economic loss) and the need to plead alternative causes of action such as negligence or nuisance.
- Confident application of leading authorities, especially Rylands, Cambridge Water, Transco, Stannard and Read v Lyons, to short fact patterns to determine whether strict liability arises.
- Critical appreciation of the modern, narrowed approach to “non‑natural” use, focusing on the requirement of “extraordinary and unusual” risk-creating activities and bulk storage.
- Structured use of the available defences (statutory authority, act of God/nature, act of a stranger, consent/common benefit, and contributory negligence) to evaluate whether liability can be reduced or avoided.
- Effective comparison between Rylands v Fletcher and private nuisance in order to choose and justify the most appropriate cause of action and remedy in SQE1-style scenarios.

## **SQE1 Syllabus**

For SQE1, you are required to understand the distinct requirements of a claim under Rylands v Fletcher and its relationship with, and differences from, negligence and nuisance, including the application of the rule's specific elements to given facts to determine potential liability, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- 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, judged by contemporary standards as extraordinary and unusual.
- The necessity of an actual 'escape' from the defendant's land or control.
- The rule that the damage caused must be of a foreseeable type.
- Recognising that liability under this rule is strict, but not absolute.
- The limited scope of recoverable damage (to land or property interests; not personal injury or pure economic loss).
- Defences available under the rule (including statutory authority, act of God/nature, act of a stranger, consent, and contributory negligence).

## **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._

1. Liability under _Rylands v Fletcher_ arises from which of the following?
   a) Unreasonable interference with the claimant's enjoyment of land.
   b) A breach of a duty to take reasonable care.
   c) The escape of something likely to do mischief from the defendant's land during a non-natural use.
   d) Direct and intentional interference with the claimant's land.

2. Which element was added to the original rule in _Rylands v Fletcher_ by the House of Lords?
   a) The thing must be likely to do mischief.
   b) There must be an escape.
   c) The use of land must be non-natural.
   d) Damage must be caused.

3. 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.

While strict, the rule has been narrowed by modern decisions. In particular, _Transco plc v Stockport MBC_ [2004] 2 AC 1 emphasises that only an “extraordinary and unusual” (non‑natural) use will suffice, and that recoverable loss is confined to damage to land or interests in land. The requirement, following _Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc_ [1994] 2 AC 264, that the type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable aligns remoteness with that in nuisance.

## **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. Similarly, wind‑blown thistles or naturally occurring hazards (e.g., a naturally formed pool) are not “things brought or kept” for the defendant’s purposes; see the approach reflected in _Giles v Walker_ (1890).

Two practical points follow:

- The accumulation must be for the defendant’s purposes. If a substance arrives by natural processes or third party action outside the defendant’s control, the element is not made out.
- It is the thing accumulated that must be the thing that escapes (see below under “Escape”).

### **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. Quantity and context matter: a domestic quantity of water may be harmless, whereas a reservoir or bulk storage of solvents may carry an exceptional risk if released (_Rylands_; _Cambridge Water_).

Fire requires particular care. Liability under _Rylands_ requires that the dangerous thing itself was accumulated and it was that thing which escaped. Fire will rarely qualify unless it is the accumulated “thing” and not merely a consequence of some other accumulation. In _Stannard v Gore_ [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, the defendant had stored tyres (which did not escape); the fire spread from his land, but the tyres themselves did not escape. The rule was not engaged because the “thing brought onto the land” (tyres) was not the damaging escape.

### **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. The classic formulation from _Rickards v Lothian_ [1913] AC 263 describes a non‑natural use as a “special use bringing with it increased danger to others” and not merely the ordinary use of land. Modern authority emphasises:

- Place: what is ordinary in an industrial estate may be extraordinary in a residential terrace.
- Time and standards: current community practice and regulatory norms inform the analysis.
- Quantity: bulk storage often tips use into non‑natural because escape would have exceptional consequences (_Cambridge Water_).

### **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. The requirement is a movement from the sphere of the defendant’s control to another’s land or public place.

Two frequent pitfalls:

- An accident occurring entirely within the defendant’s premises, however dangerous, does not constitute an escape.
- It is the thing brought or kept that must escape. If ancillary consequences (e.g., fire) escape but the accumulated thing did not, the element will not be satisfied (_Stannard_).

### **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. Thus, where chemical solvents seep through soil and contaminate groundwater, liability will depend on whether, at the material time, contamination of that type was reasonably foreseeable from the defendant’s use (_Cambridge Water_). 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_. Claims for personal injury should be brought, if at all, in negligence.

A practical approach to foreseeability:

- Identify the escape and the thing that escaped.
- Ask whether, given that escape, the kind of damage suffered (e.g., flooding; contamination; corrosion; structural collapse) was reasonably foreseeable.
- Consider the knowledge available at the time (state of scientific knowledge and industry standards).

### **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).

### **Worked Example 1.2**

A local authority maintains a large water pipe supplying domestic water to a block of flats. A leak occurs in the pipe under a grassed embankment, undermining the ground and exposing a gas main. The gas utility incurs expense stabilising the embankment and protecting its pipe.

_Can the gas utility recover under Rylands v Fletcher from the local authority?_

> **Answer:** Unlikely.
>
> - **Accumulation:** Water was present for domestic distribution.
> - **Likely to do mischief:** Water in bulk can cause damage if it escapes.
> - **Non-natural use:** Supplying domestic water via pipes is an ordinary, natural use of land in modern conditions (_Transco_).
> - **Escape:** The water leaked within the authority’s land; even if escape were arguable, the non‑natural use element would fail.
> - **Damage:** Any claim would need to be framed in negligence or nuisance; Rylands does not assist on these facts.

### **Worked Example 1.3**

A tyre wholesaler stores thousands of tyres in a warehouse. A fire starts accidentally and spreads to a neighbouring business, causing substantial damage. The neighbour sues in Rylands.

_Will the claim succeed?_

> **Answer:** No, on Rylands facts the claim fails.
>
> - **Accumulation:** Tyres were accumulated.
> - **Likely to do mischief:** Tyres are not, in themselves, likely to cause damage if they escape; it was fire that spread.
> - **Escape:** The tyres did not escape; the fire did. Rylands requires the escape of the accumulated thing (_Stannard v Gore_).
> - **Alternative:** The neighbour should consider nuisance or negligence, subject to proof of fault.

### **Worked Example 1.4**

A fireworks importer stores large quantities of fireworks in a bonded warehouse near a residential area. An accident triggers a massive explosion, propelling debris onto neighbouring properties, damaging roofs, windows, and garden structures.

_Is liability under Rylands v Fletcher likely?_

> **Answer:** Potentially, yes, for property damage (not personal injury).
>
> - **Accumulation:** Large quantities of fireworks were deliberately brought and kept.
> - **Likely to do mischief:** Fireworks, in bulk, are likely to cause damage if they escape (through explosion and projection of debris).
> - **Non-natural use:** Bulk storage of explosives near residential property is extraordinary and unusual, carrying an exceptional risk.
> - **Escape:** Debris and explosive force moved from the defendant’s control to neighbouring land.
> - **Damage:** The type of damage (physical harm to property) was foreseeable; recovery would be limited to property damage and proprietary interests.

### **Worked Example 1.5**

A building’s rainwater drainage system, used by all occupiers, fails because a rat has gnawed a hole in a box gutter. Water escapes and damages a tenant’s stock, who sues the landlord under Rylands.

_Does Rylands apply?_

> **Answer:** Likely not.
>
> - **Accumulation:** Rainwater collected naturally; the landlord did not bring it onto the land for his own purposes.
> - **Common benefit:** Drainage serving the premises can, in some instances, be for the common benefit of occupiers (_Carstairs v Taylor_). Liability under Rylands is unlikely to arise.
> - **Alternative routes:** Depending on fault and contractual terms, negligence or other remedies may be relevant.

### **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.

In addition, liability is strict but not absolute. The rule is subject to recognised defences:

- Statutory authority (the activity authorised by statute and the nuisance or escape is its inevitable consequence).
- Act of God/nature (exceptional natural events; now rarely successful and confined to truly extraordinary occurrences).
- Act of a stranger (a third party’s unforeseeable independent act causes the escape, e.g., a trespasser ignites a tank; see _Perry v Kendricks_ [1956]).
- Consent/common benefit (where the accumulation serves a mutual advantage; e.g., shared drainage).
- Contributory negligence (may reduce damages where the claimant’s own fault contributes to loss).

### **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.
>
> Also remember the “thing that escapes” requirement. If the accumulated item does not escape (e.g., tyres), Rylands will not assist even if consequential fire spreads. Consider nuisance or negligence instead.

## **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; quantity and context may make an otherwise innocuous substance dangerous upon escape.
- The use of land must be non-natural, involving exceptional risk judged by current standards; domestic utilities and ordinary industrial activities usually fall outside this threshold.
- There must be an escape from the defendant's control to a place outside their control; injuries occurring entirely within the defendant’s premises do not suffice.
- 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, consistent with _Cambridge Water_.
- Liability is strict concerning the escape, but fault may be relevant to defences (e.g., act of a stranger, statutory authority, consent/common benefit, contributory negligence).
- Fire will not generally found liability under Rylands unless the fire itself is the accumulated “thing” and it is that thing which escapes; the escape must be of the thing brought or kept.
- Modern authority (_Transco_) confines the rule’s scope: extraordinary and unusual use is required, and claims should often be framed alternatively in nuisance or negligence.

## **Key Terms and Concepts**

- Accumulation
- Likely to do Mischief
- Non-Natural Use
- Escape
- Foreseeable Damage

Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher - Elements of a Rylands v Fletcher claim