Rylands v Fletcher: Explained.
- teachlawhub
- May 25
- 4 min read
Rylands v Fletcher, an important area of tort law that often appears in exams. This area of tort law that deals claims where the defendant can be found liable and can be held legally responsible for damage caused by something that they have stored on their land, and it then escapes from their land and causes damage to the neighbouring land.
Imagine this: your neighbour stores a huge tank of water in their garden. The tank bursts, and water floods your property, destroying your garden and damaging your shed. Even if your neighbour didn’t mean for the damage to happen, the law might still say they’re responsible. This is exactly the kind of situation Rylands v Fletcher deals with, here we have a claim where someone brings something onto their land, and it escapes, causing harm.
The rules that cover this area of tort law come from the case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868). In this case, the defendant built a reservoir upon their land. Unknown to them, it was placed over disused mine shafts. Water leaked through the shafts and flooded the claimant’s working mine. The court said the defendant was liable because they had brought something dangerous onto their land and it escaped, causing damage.
This case created a special type of liability in tort (often called the strict liability tort). Even if someone isn’t negligent, they can still be held responsible if all of the following apply:
They bring something onto their land and accumulate it.
The thing is likely to cause damage if it escapes.
It escapes and causes reasonably foreseeable damage.
The storage is considered a non-natural use of the land (an extraordinary or unusual use of the land).
Who is the Claimant and Defendant?
Only someone with a legal interest in the land can bring a claim. This means the claimant must own or rent the property or land that was damaged. The defendant must be in control of the land where the dangerous thing was kept. In British Celanese v Hunt, the court confirmed that the defendant needs to have some level of control over the land and the thing stored there.
Breaking Down the Key Elements
Bringing Onto the Land and Accumulation: The defendant must actively bring the thing onto their land and store it. If the thing is already there naturally, there is no liability. For example, in Giles v Walker (1890), thistle seeds blew from the defendant’s land and damaged crops. Because the seeds grew naturally, the court said the defendant wasn’t liable.
The Thing Is Likely to Cause Mischief if It Escapes: The thing stored must pose a real risk of danger if it escapes. It doesn’t have to be dangerous on its own. Water, for example, is harmless in small amounts, but in large quantities, like a flooded reservoir, it can cause major damage.
Escape and Reasonably Foreseeable Damage: There must be an actual escape from the defendant’s land to the claimant’s. In Stannard v Gore (2012), tyres caught fire, and the fire spread to the claimant’s land. The court said it was the fire, not the tyres, that escaped, so the defendant wasn’t liable under Rylands v Fletcher.
The damage caused must also be reasonably foreseeable. In Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994), chemicals slowly leaked through the soil and contaminated a water supply. Here the damage was too remote because the chemical leakage over time wasn’t foreseeable, so the claim failed.
Non-Natural / Extraordinary or Unusual Use of the Land: The defendant’s use of land must be considered out of the ordinary, this means that the storage of the thing must not be expected or usual, it must be considered as a ‘non-natural’ use of land. In Transco v Stockport (2004), the court decided that this means that the use of land must be extraordinary and unusual considering the time and place, here the courts said that ordinary water pipes in a block of flats were a normal use of land, so there was no liability. On the other hand, in Mason v Levy Autoparts (1967), storing large amounts of tyres in a dangerous way was seen as unusual, and the defendant was held liable.
Defences:
There are several defences that the defendant can raise:
Volenti: If the claimant consented to the dangerous thing being stored, they may not be able to claim.
Act of a stranger: If someone the defendant has no control over caused the escape, the defendant may have a defence.
Act of God: Extreme weather or natural events that couldn’t be predicted may excuse liability.
Public benefit: If the thing was stored for the good of the community, this may limit the defendant’s responsibility.
Act of the claimant: If the claimant’s own actions caused the escape, this can be a full defence.
Remedies
If a claim under Rylands v Fletcher is successful, the claimant can recover damages to cover the cost of the property damage. However, it’s important to note that personal injury is not covered by this type of claim, only damage to land and property.
Rylands v Fletcher is a strict liability tort, meaning that the defendant can be liable even if they weren’t careless. This area of law focuses on the storage of dangerous things and whether their escape causes damage to others. For A-Level exams, it's essential to understand the key elements, know the leading cases, and be able to apply them to a scenario.
Click below to download the free TeachLaw student activity.
Click below to download the free TeachLaw Flashcards.