Learning Outcomes
This article clarifies the concept of 'non-natural use' of land as it applies within the torts of private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. After reading this article, you should be able to distinguish between natural and non-natural uses of land, identify the key factors courts consider in making this determination, and understand the significance of non-natural use for establishing liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. This knowledge is essential for applying the correct legal principles to SQE1 assessment scenarios involving interference with land.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you are required to understand the principles of liability under private nuisance and the specific rule established in Rylands v Fletcher. This includes identifying the key elements of each tort, particularly how the concept of 'non-natural use' affects liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
As you work through this article, focus your revision on:
- The definition and elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
- The specific requirement for a 'non-natural use' of land under this rule.
- Factors considered by courts when determining if a use is 'non-natural', such as the quantity of the substance accumulated, the magnitude of risk, and whether the use is ordinary or extraordinary.
- Distinguishing 'non-natural use' under Rylands from 'unreasonable interference' in private nuisance.
- Applying these principles to determine potential liability in SQE1 scenarios.
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.
-
Which element distinguishes the rule in Rylands v Fletcher from general private nuisance regarding the defendant's use of land?
- The interference must be continuous.
- The use of land must be unreasonable.
- The use of land must be non-natural.
- The claimant must have a proprietary interest.
-
Which case is the primary authority for the rule imposing strict liability for the escape of dangerous things accumulated under non-natural use?
- St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping
- Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc
- Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
- Rylands v Fletcher
-
True or False? Domestic plumbing systems involving water pipes are generally considered a 'non-natural use' of land for the purposes of Rylands v Fletcher.
Introduction
Understanding liability for interference emanating from land requires knowledge of both private nuisance and the specific rule derived from Rylands v Fletcher. While private nuisance addresses unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land, Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of something likely to do mischief, which was brought onto land as part of a 'non-natural use'. This article focuses specifically on the concept of 'non-natural use' and its importance in applying the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
The rule established in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability on an occupier of land for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous thing that they brought onto their land and accumulated.
Key Term: Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
A tort imposing strict liability on an occupier for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous thing accumulated on their land during a non-natural use.
For liability under this rule to arise, several elements must be established:
- The defendant brings onto their land and collects/keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes.
- The defendant makes a 'non-natural use' of the land.
- The thing accumulated escapes from the defendant's land.
- The escape causes foreseeable damage of the relevant type.
This article concentrates on the second element: non-natural use of land.
Non-Natural Use of Land
The requirement that the defendant's use of land must be 'non-natural' is a key component of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher and serves to limit the scope of this strict liability tort.
Key Term: Non-natural use
A use of land that is extraordinary, unusual, or special, bringing with it increased danger to others, beyond the risks associated with ordinary use of land in a particular locality at a particular time.
The concept originated with Lord Cairns' judgment in the House of Lords decision in Rylands v Fletcher itself, where constructing a large reservoir was implicitly treated as non-natural. Subsequent case law has refined the meaning.
Determining Non-Natural Use
Whether a particular use of land is 'non-natural' is a question of fact determined by the court based on all the circumstances. Key factors include:
- Ordinary vs Extraordinary Use: The central question is whether the use is ordinary and routine or if it is special and unusual. Domestic water supply pipes, for instance, were held to be a natural use of land (Rickards v Lothian; Transco plc v Stockport MBC). In contrast, storing large quantities of industrial chemicals might be considered non-natural (Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc).
- Magnitude of Risk: A use that creates an exceptionally high risk of danger if something escapes is more likely to be deemed non-natural (Transco plc v Stockport MBC). This involves assessing both the likelihood and potential severity of harm.
- Quantity: Accumulating very large quantities of a substance, even if not inherently dangerous (like water in Rylands), can render the use non-natural due to the increased danger posed by the quantity.
- Context and Time: What constitutes non-natural use can change over time and depends on the standards and practices prevalent in society (Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd). Storage of petrol in a car's tank in a garage might have been non-natural in 1919 (Musgrove v Pandelis) but is clearly natural today.
- Public Benefit: While not a defence, the public benefit derived from the defendant's activity may influence the court's assessment, although this is rarely decisive in determining if the use itself is non-natural.
Contrast with Natural Use
The rule does not apply to things naturally present on the land (e.g., naturally occurring water bodies, trees, rocks). It also does not apply to ordinary uses of land, such as domestic wiring, plumbing (Rickards v Lothian), or typical agricultural practices. The essential distinction lies in whether the activity introduces a special or increased risk beyond the norm for that type of land use.
Worked Example 1.1
A factory stores large metal drums containing industrial solvents essential for its manufacturing process. The factory is located on an industrial estate. Due to negligent storage, some drums leak, and the solvent escapes onto neighbouring land, damaging sensitive crops. Is the storage of these solvents likely to be considered a non-natural use of land under Rylands v Fletcher?
Answer: Potentially yes. While operating a factory on an industrial estate is normal, storing large quantities of potentially hazardous industrial solvents might be considered a use bringing increased danger beyond the ordinary. The court would consider the quantity, the innate danger of the solvents if they escape, and whether such storage is common practice on similar estates. The fact it's an industrial estate is relevant but not decisive; the specific activity (large-scale chemical storage) might still be deemed non-natural due to the heightened risk (Cambridge Water).
Worked Example 1.2
A homeowner installs a large decorative fish pond in their back garden, using a heavy-duty liner and circulating pump system. Following exceptionally heavy rainfall, the pond overflows, and water escapes into a neighbour's garden, flooding their shed. Is the creation of the garden pond a non-natural use?
Answer: Unlikely. Creating a garden pond, even a large one, is generally considered an ordinary and natural use of a residential garden. It doesn't typically involve accumulating something inherently dangerous in a way that creates an exceptional risk beyond normal domestic activities. The escape was due to rainfall, potentially raising the defence of Act of God if the rainfall was truly exceptional and unforeseeable. The use itself is likely 'natural' (Rickards v Lothian principle).
Significance of Non-Natural Use
Establishing non-natural use is essential for a claim under Rylands v Fletcher. If the use is deemed natural, the claim under this specific rule fails, although liability might still arise under negligence or private nuisance (if the interference is unreasonable and ongoing). The non-natural use requirement restricts the scope of strict liability to activities that genuinely create exceptional risks, distinguishing it from the broader tort of nuisance which focuses on the unreasonableness of the interference caused by the use, rather than the fundamental nature of the use itself.
Key Term: Strict Liability
Liability imposed without the need to prove fault (such as negligence or intention) on the part of the defendant. Under Rylands v Fletcher, if the elements are met, the defendant is liable even if they took reasonable care to prevent the escape.
Exam Warning
Do not confuse 'non-natural use' under Rylands v Fletcher with 'unreasonable interference' in private nuisance. A use of land might be perfectly natural (e.g., keeping pigs) but still cause an unreasonable interference (e.g., excessive smell) amounting to nuisance. Conversely, a non-natural use (e.g., bulk storage of chemicals) might only lead to Rylands liability if there is an escape causing damage; it doesn't automatically constitute nuisance without unreasonable interference.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- The rule in Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability for damage caused by the escape of dangerous things accumulated during a non-natural use of land.
- 'Non-natural use' is a key element required for liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
- Non-natural use refers to a use that is extraordinary, unusual, or brings increased danger beyond ordinary uses of land.
- Determining non-natural use is fact-specific, considering factors like quantity, risk, ordinariness, and context.
- Activities naturally occurring on land or ordinary domestic/industrial uses are generally not considered non-natural.
- The requirement of non-natural use limits the scope of strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
- 'Non-natural use' (Rylands) is distinct from 'unreasonable interference' (nuisance).
Key Terms and Concepts
- Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
- Non-natural use
- Strict Liability
