Update 13th September 2024: Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more
DEFINING THE RULE
Where D deliberately accumulates something on his land which amounts to a ‘non-natural user’ of his land, and which is likely to do damage to C's land if it escapes, D is required by law to prevent its escape, and is liable for all the direct and foreseeable consequences of its escape.
The classic statement of the rule was articulated by Blackburn J in Rylands v Fletcher:
the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes [and it is a non-natural use], must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
D is free to use his land as he chooses, but if he creates a risk of harm to C, by deciding to use his land to accumulate a dangerous or mischievous thing, then he should bear the consequences if that thing does damage to C as adjoining or nearby landowner.
The framework for the tort of Rylands v Fletcher can be summarised as follows:
Nutshell analysis: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher
Preconditions for the tort to apply:
i Capacity of C to sue
ii Capacity of D to be sued
Elements of the tort:
1 A dangerous thing escaped from D's land
2 D deliberately accumulated that dangerous thing
3 The accumulation was a non-natural user of the land
4(a) The escape caused C the requisite damage
4(b) The damage is not too remote to be recoverable at law
Defences to the tort:
• The escape was caused by an Act of God
• The escape was caused by a vis major
• The escape was caused by a stranger
• The accumulation was consented to by C
• D's activity was permitted by statutory authorisation or codification
• Contributory negligence
Miscellaneous matter:
Fire: Is it a scenario to which the Fires Prevention (Metropolis) Act 1774 applies?
Before considering the issues outlined in the framework, it is useful to consider briefly the history of the rule and the reasons for its emergence, and its coalescence with other causes of action.
Review the options below to login to check your access.
Log in with your Cambridge Higher Education account to check access.
There are no purchase options available for this title.
If you believe you should have access to this content, please contact your institutional librarian or consult our FAQ page for further information about accessing our content.