Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.Bohlen (1911) 300
Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir on his land. As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage (). Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands.Simpson (1984) 212 & 243 At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Baron Bramwell, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in Rylands v Fletcher".
This doctrine was further developed by English courts, and made an immediate impact on the law. Prior to Rylands, English courts had not based their decisions in similar cases on strict liability, and had focused on the intention behind the actions rather than the nature of the actions themselves. In contrast, Rylands imposed strict liability on those found detrimental in such a fashion without having to prove a duty of care or negligence, which brought the law into line with that relating to public reservoirs and marked a significant doctrinal shift. The rule in Rylands has both been distinguished with and regarded as a species of the tort of private nuisance and even construed as a "liability rule".Burns 291McBride 754-773 Unlike ordinary cases of private nuisance, the rule in Rylands requires the escape of a thing that arises from a non-natural use rather than the typical interference emanating from unreasonable use of land. It additionally does not require an act to be continuous, which is typically a requirement for nuisance. Academics have criticised the rule both for the economic damage such a doctrine could cause and for its limited applicability.
The tort of Rylands v Fletcher has been disclaimed in various jurisdictions, including Scotland, where it was described as "a heresy that ought to be extirpated", and Australia, where the High Court chose to destroy the doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd. Within England and Wales, however, Rylands remains valid law, although the decisions in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council make it clear that it is no longer an independent tort, but instead a sub-tort of nuisance.
Facts In 1860, Rylands paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land, intending that it should supply the Ainsworth Mill with water. Rylands played no active role in the construction, instead contracting out to a competent engineer. While building it, the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts and passages under the land filled loosely with soil and debris, which joined up with Thomas Fletcher's adjoining mine.Bohlen (1911) 298 Rather than blocking these shafts up, the contractors left them.Elliott (2007) 288 On 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands' reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher's mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937 worth of damage.Simpson (1984) 212 Fletcher pumped the water out, but on 17 April 1861 his pump burst, and the mine again began to flood. At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and the sunken coal shafts were discovered.Simpson (1984) 241 Fletcher brought a claim against Rylands and the landowner, Jehu Horrocks, on 4 November 1861.Simpson (1984) 242
Judgment
Liverpool Assizes The tort of trespass was inapplicable, as the flooding was deemed not to be "direct and immediate"; the tort of nuisance was rejected as this was a one-off event.Woodside III (2003) 4 The case was first heard by Judge John Mellor and a special jury in September 1862 at the Liverpool Assizes;Simpson (1984) 243 a court order led to an arbitrator from the Exchequer of Pleas being appointed in December 1864.Waite (2006) 423 The arbitrator decided that the contractors were liable for negligence, since they had known about the old mine shafts. Rylands, however, had no way of knowing about the mine shafts and so was not.
Exchequer of Pleas The case then went to the Exchequer of Pleas, where it was heard between 3 and 5 May 1865.Simpson 244 It was heard on two points: first, whether the defendants were liable for the actions of the contractors and secondly, whether the defendants were liable for the damage regardless of their lack of negligence.Bohlen (1911) 299 They decided for the first point that the defendants were not liable, but were split on the second point. Baron Channell recused. Chief Baron Pollock and Baron Samuel Martin held that the defendants were not liable, as since a negligence claim could not be brought there was no valid case. Baron Bramwell, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. He stated that "the general law, wholly independent of contract" should be that the defendants were liable, "on the plain ground that the defendants have caused water to flow into the [claimant]'s mines, which but for their act would not have gone there..."Simpson (1984) 246
Court of Exchequer Chamber
Fletcher appealed to the Exchequer Chamber of six judges. The prior decision was overturned in his favour. Mr Justice Colin Blackburn spoke on behalf of all the judges and said that:
Blackburn's opinion relied on the liability for damages to land available through the tort of chattel trespass and the tort of nuisance, as well as the in scienter action, injury by a domesticated animal known to have a disposition to injure.(1865–66) LR 1 Ex 265, 281, relying on Cox v Burbidge (1863) 13 CB (NS), at 438; 32 LJ (CP) 89 Rylands appealed.
House of Lords
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and agreed with the determination for Fletcher.(1868) LR 3 HL 330 Lord Cairns, in speaking for the House of Lords, stated their agreement of the rule stated above by Mr Justice Blackburn, but added a further limitation on liability, which is that the land from which the escape occurs must have been modified in a way which would be considered non-natural, unusual or inappropriate. The case was then heard by the House of Lords on 6 and 7 July 1868, with a judgment delivered on 17 July. Oddly the court consisted of only two judges, Lord Cairns and Lord Cranworth; Lord Colonsay failed to attend.Simpson (1984) 250 The eventual judgment confirmed Blackburn's decision and general principle, adding a requirement that the use be "non-natural".Bermingham (2008) 248 The judgment of Lord Cairns was as follows.(1868) LR 3 HL 330, 338-339
Significance
Enjoyment of property
The 'enjoyment of land' was primary in the reasons of Lord Cairns (above). This foundation stone is a recurring theme in the common law throughout the ages, to wit: "It has been well said, that the use of the law consists, first, in preserving men's persons from death and violence; next, in securing to them the free enjoyment of their property."John Richards, (1832) The Legal Observer or Journal of Jurisprudence, John Richards Law Bookseller and Publisher, vol 4 p 52 Tindal, CJ: Charge to the Grand Jury at Bristol on the occasion of the 1832 riots over the rejection in the House of Lords of the Reform Bill.Sources of English Constitutional History, Stephenson & MarchamCarrington and Payne, Reports, V, 556 note
Change to the law Early English common law had, in many instances, imposed liability on those who had caused harm regardless of wrongful intent or negligence. Trespass was considered a remedy for all tortious wrongs, and sometimes used as a synonym for torts generally.Woodside III (2003) 2 Over the centuries, however, judges focused more on the intent and negligence behind the actions than the nature of the actions themselves, leading to the development of negligence and nuisance and the further development of trespass.Woodside III (2003) 3 At the time of Rylands, the previous case relied upon was Vaughan v Menlove,(1837) 132 ER 490 decided in the Court of Common Pleas in 1837. The case had almost identical facts to Rylands, but strict liability was never even considered. The case is instead thought of as one of the best attempts of early 19th century English judges to build up the law of negligence.Simpson (1984) 211 The outcome of Rylands meant that judges would again impose strict liability on defendants who accumulated dangerous things on their land without any need to prove negligence or wrongful intent. The decision won support for bringing the law relating to private reservoirs up to standard with the law relating to public reservoirs, which contained similar statutory provisions thanks to a pair of private Acts of Parliament passed in 1853 and 1864.Simpson (1984) 234
Assessment The decision in Rylands initially faced little criticism within England and Wales, although many American scholars and judges of the time felt that judgment was a poor one. Chief Justice Charles Doe of the New Hampshire Supreme Court wrote that it "put a clog upon natural and reasonably necessary uses of matter and tend to embarrass and obstruct much of the work which it seems to be a man's duty carefully to do". The American interpretation was based primarily on the idea that it would cause economic harm.Bohlen (1911) 304 Further American criticism is based on the idea that it is poor law. Firstly, they argue, it is not trespass, since the damage is not direct, and secondly, it is not a nuisance, because there is no continuous action.Bohlen (1911) 305 Glofcheski, writing in the Hong Kong Law Journal, notes that "the doctrine has not flourished... a tort imposing strict liability should be closely interpreted and circumspectly applied".Glofcheski (1994) 189 It has been argued that the decision was never entirely accepted by the judiciary as a whole, and that it is difficult to justify. This is for two reasons; firstly, it is a case of very limited applicability, and it has been suggested that it be folded into a general principle of strict liability for "ultra-hazardous" activities. Secondly, subsequent case law in England and Wales, particularly in Rickards v Lothian, has undermined the "non-natural use" element by introducing a cost/benefit analysis which severely limits the decision's usefulness.Cane (1994) 237
Canada
The first article in the 1960 Canadian Bill of RightsText of Canadian Bill of Rights states that "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law" is recognised. However it is difficult to adjudicate on this Bill, especially as the provinces have priority over property rights.
A difficulty is encountered with the definition of "property", as remarked by Johansen,Johansen, "Property rights and the constitution" which may well be the reason why the matter remains for interpretation by precedent. The 1974 test case for the Bill of Rights, Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell, provided an impetus for the 1982 Charter of Rights, which specifically excludes the "enjoyment of property" for reasons described in the Constitutional history of Canada page. Fridman on Torts in Canada has helpful material.G.H.L. Fridman, The Law of Torts in Canada 2d 3d. (Scarborough: Carswell, 2002) at 218