Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher - Escape and foreseeable harm

Learning Outcomes

After reading this article, you will be able to identify and apply the legal principles of private and public nuisance, explain the elements and defences of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, and distinguish between direct and indirect interferences with land. You will also understand the requirements for escape, non-natural use, and foreseeability of harm, and be able to analyse scenarios involving environmental harm, property damage, and land-based disputes for SQE1.

SQE1 Syllabus

For SQE1, you are required to understand the law of nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher as they relate to land-based torts. In your revision, focus on:

• the distinction between private and public nuisance, including their elements and remedies
• the requirements for liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, including escape, non-natural use, and foreseeability of harm
• the available defences to nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher claims
• the relationship between nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, negligence, and trespass
• how to apply these principles to factual scenarios involving property damage, environmental harm, or interference with land use

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. What are the essential elements a claimant must prove to succeed under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
2. In what circumstances will an act or omission amount to a private nuisance?
3. What defences are available to a defendant facing a claim under Rylands v Fletcher?
4. How does the requirement of foreseeability limit liability under Rylands v Fletcher?

Introduction

Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher are key torts protecting the use and enjoyment of land. These doctrines address indirect interferences and strict liability for escapes of dangerous substances. For SQE1, you must be able to identify when each applies, the elements required for liability, and the available defences.

Private and Public Nuisance

Nuisance is divided into private and public nuisance. Both protect interests in land but differ in scope and who can claim.

Private Nuisance

Private nuisance is an unlawful, indirect interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over it. The interference must be substantial and unreasonable.

Key Term: private nuisance An unlawful, indirect interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or rights over it.

Types of Interference

• Encroachment onto land (e.g., tree roots)
• Physical damage to land or buildings (e.g., chemical leaks)
• Interference with enjoyment (e.g., noise, smells, dust)

Factors Affecting Reasonableness

Courts consider several factors to determine if the interference is unreasonable:

• Locality: What is normal in an industrial area may be a nuisance in a residential area.
• Duration and Frequency: Persistent or repeated interference is more likely to be a nuisance.
• Sensitivity of the Claimant: Liability is less likely if only an unusually sensitive claimant is affected.
• Malice: Deliberate acts to annoy are more likely to be unreasonable.

Key Term: locality The character of the area where the alleged nuisance occurs, relevant to assessing reasonableness.

Worked Example 1.1

A bakery operates in a residential street and emits strong smells daily. Neighbours complain that the smell prevents them from enjoying their gardens. Is this likely to be a private nuisance?

Answer: Yes. The persistent smell interferes with the neighbours' enjoyment of their land. The residential character of the area makes the interference more likely to be unreasonable.

Who Can Sue and Be Sued

Only those with a proprietary interest (owner or tenant) can sue. The creator of the nuisance, the occupier, and sometimes the landlord (if they authorised the nuisance) can be liable.

Public Nuisance

Public nuisance is an act or omission that materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the public. It is both a tort and a crime.

Key Term: public nuisance An act or omission materially affecting the reasonable comfort and convenience of a class of the public.

Requirements

• The nuisance must affect a cross-section of the public (not just individuals).
• The claimant must suffer special damage over and above the general public.

Worked Example 1.2

A factory emits smoke that affects the whole village. One resident suffers a severe asthma attack as a result. Can they claim in public nuisance?

Answer: Yes. The smoke affects a class of the public, and the resident has suffered special damage (the asthma attack) beyond the general inconvenience.

The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things brought onto land for a non-natural use.

Key Term: Rylands v Fletcher A strict liability rule for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things brought onto land for a non-natural use.

Elements of the Rule

To succeed, the claimant must prove:

1. The defendant brought onto their land something likely to cause harm if it escapes.
2. The use of land was non-natural (extraordinary or unusual).
3. The thing escaped from the defendant's land.
4. The escape caused foreseeable damage of the relevant type.

Key Term: escape The movement of a dangerous thing from the defendant's land to land outside their control.

Key Term: non-natural use A use of land that is extraordinary or increases danger to others, not ordinary or usual for the area.

Key Term: foreseeability The requirement that the type of damage caused by the escape must have been reasonably foreseeable.

Worked Example 1.3

A chemical company stores large tanks of acid on its land. Due to a leak, acid escapes and damages a neighbour's crops. Is the company liable under Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer: Yes. The company brought a dangerous thing (acid) onto its land, the storage was a non-natural use, the acid escaped, and the damage was foreseeable.

Defences to Rylands v Fletcher

Defences include:

• Act of a stranger (unforeseeable third party causes the escape)
• Act of God (unforeseeable natural event)
• Consent (claimant agreed to the accumulation)
• Statutory authority (activity authorised by law)
• Contributory negligence (claimant partly at fault)

Key Term: act of a stranger An unforeseeable act by a third party over whom the defendant has no control, breaking the chain of liability.

Key Term: act of God An unforeseeable, extraordinary natural event that could not have been guarded against.

Worked Example 1.4

A reservoir overflows after an unprecedented earthquake, flooding a neighbour's land. Is the reservoir owner liable under Rylands v Fletcher?

Answer: No. The earthquake is an act of God—an unforeseeable natural event—providing a defence.

Relationship with Other Torts

Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher overlap with negligence and trespass but have distinct features:

• Nuisance covers indirect, ongoing interferences; trespass covers direct, intentional acts.
• Rylands v Fletcher is strict liability but now requires foreseeability of damage.
• Negligence requires proof of fault; Rylands v Fletcher does not, but both require foreseeability.

Revision Tip

For SQE1, always check if the facts fit nuisance, Rylands v Fletcher, negligence, or trespass. Use the correct elements and defences for each.

Exam Warning

For Rylands v Fletcher, liability only arises if the escape is from a non-natural use and the damage is foreseeable. Not all escapes will qualify.

Summary

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Private nuisance protects the use and enjoyment of land from indirect, unreasonable interferences.
• Public nuisance protects the public from acts affecting a class of people; claimants must show special damage.
• Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for escapes of dangerous things from non-natural uses of land.
• Liability under Rylands v Fletcher requires escape, non-natural use, and foreseeable damage.
• Defences to Rylands v Fletcher include act of a stranger, act of God, consent, statutory authority, and contributory negligence.
• Nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher overlap with negligence and trespass but have distinct requirements and remedies.

Key Terms and Concepts

• private nuisance
• locality
• public nuisance
• Rylands v Fletcher
• escape
• non-natural use
• foreseeability
• act of a stranger
• act of God