Download Careers360 App
Rylands vs Fletcher

Rylands vs Fletcher

Edited By Ritika Jonwal | Updated on Jul 02, 2025 05:41 PM IST

The well-known Rylands v. Fletcher case established the Rule of Strict Liability under the Law of Torts. The Rule states that "Even though the individual is not at fault, they are legally responsible for the loss caused to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant."

This legal studies primarily focuses on the idea that anyone who engages in an activity that causes harm to the plaintiff, whether directly or indirectly, is legally responsible for the plaintiff's injuries on behalf of the defendant, even if that person takes the appropriate safety precautions. This liability exists even in the absence of Negligence or malicious intent. The "no" fault liability rule is a common name for this regulation.

This Story also Contains
  1. Rylands v. Fletcher 1866
  2. The Rule of Strict Liability
  3. The Rule of Absolute Liability
  4. Difference between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability
  5. Conclusion
Rylands vs Fletcher
Rylands vs Fletcher

Rylands v. Fletcher 1866

Facts of the case

The defendant Rylands hired an independent contractor to create a reservoir across his property so that he could supply water to his mill. The contractors were unaware that there were some old, abandoned shafts beneath the reservoir. As the reservoir filled, water leaked through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff's coal mines on the nearby property. Despite the defendant's lack of responsibility, Rylands, the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against Fletcher seeking damages.

Issues raised in the case

  • Was there any negligence on the part of Rylands

  • Should the defendant Rylands be responsible for paying damages to the plaintiff Fletcher and was building a reservoir upon the defendant's property was reasonable

Judgement delivered

Judgement by The Court of Liverpool

The Court of Liverpool ruled in the defendant's favour, concluding that there was no trespassing or nuisance. Later, in December 1864, an arbitrator was appointed by a court order from the Exchequer of Pleas. The arbitrator found that the independent contractors were negligent as they neglected to appropriately handle the abandoned mine shafts even though they were aware of their existence. The arbitrator ruled that Rylands could not be held accountable because he had no way of knowing about the mining shafts.

Judgement by the Court Of Exchequer of Pleas

The Exchequer of Pleas was then notified of the matter. In this case, two questions were answered: first, if the defendants were liable for the contractors' acts; and second, if the defendants were not at fault but still had to pay for the damages.

Although the court reached a majority decision that the defendant was not accountable for the acts of contractors, opinions differed on the second point. Because a negligence claim could not be proved, Pollock CB and Martin B claimed that there was no strong case and that the defendants were therefore not liable. The claimant had the right to enjoy his land free from the defendant's reservoir's water, according to Judge Bramwell B, the dissenting vote. Therefore, the defendant was found guilty of trespassing and commissioning a nuisance. The defendant was found guilty of trespassing and causing a nuisance because the claimant's land was inundated as a result of the defendant's reservoir construction.

Judgement delivered by the Court of Exchequer Chamber

Fletcher filed an appeal with the six-judge Exchequer Chamber after being dissatisfied with the Court of Exchequer of Pleas' ruling. The Court of Exchequer of Pleas' decision was overturned by the judges. This Court was the first to adopt the idea of strict liability.

A guideline for when an owner can become obligated to bring any threat onto his land was set by the Exchequer Chamber court. The court looked into a few defences that might help absolve the defendant of responsibility at the same time.

This led to the establishment of the strict liability rule, which holds people accountable for any damage brought about by a dangerous object they buy for their property, regardless of whether they were careless, aware of the risk, or meant to cause harm. However, the Court also stipulated some exclusions, such as an Act of God or the Plaintiff's default, under which this rule will not be applied. However, since Rylands v. Fletcher lacks any of these exclusions, the court found Ryland accountable for Fletcher's injuries.

Judgement delivered by the House of Lords

Infuriated by the Court of Exchequer Chamber's decision, Rylands filed an appeal with the House of Lords. The House of Lords not only dismissed the appeal but also provided more clarification on the strict liability rule's parameters. The Court determined that for the rule of strict responsibility to be applicable, the land from which escape occurred had to have been transformed in a way that would be considered non-natural, unusual, or improper.

Contentions raised

Mr Ryland asserted that he did not influence the conduct of the indepA judge did, however, rule that Mr Fletcher had the whole right to utilize the land and that Mr Ryland had committed trespass by allowing the water to escape, necessitating the payment of damages. Mr Ryland was declared guilty of trespassing by the court. terminated his contractor hire. For an error made by an independent contractor, he bears no liability.

The Rule of Strict Liability

Strict liability holds people responsible for losses or damages caused by their products or actions, even if they weren't at fault or didn't intend to harm. A harmed person may recover damages under strict liability without needing to prove negligence or accountability. If the action is subject to strict liability laws, the defendant will be held liable even if they post warnings and adopt safety measures. Because of the defendant's actions' extreme potential for harm, it is reasonable to assume that someone will be harmed. This is the basis for strict liability. It is meant to convince those who engage in these types of actions or behaviours to exercise caution. The injured party does not have to prove the offender is guilty; they only need to show that the risky conditions caused their injury. In tort law, the Doctrine of Strict Liability idea only takes into account whether the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff's damage; it ignores the defendant's carelessness, lack of reasonable care, or malice.

Fundamental Elements of The Doctrine of Strict Liability

Involvement of a dangerous substance

The first prerequisite for applying the rule outlined in Ryland v. Fletcher is the presence of a harmful substance. If whatever a person purchased or obtained was dangerous, they are the only ones accountable. What is hazardous may depend on the particulars of the situation, including its facts and circumstances. Poisonous trees, rusty wire, explosives, toxic fumes, and so on are examples of hazardous materials.

Escape from the dangerous substance

The defendant's purchase of a dangerous item must also be escaped for the strict liability rule to apply. "The thing must escape to the area outside the occupation and control of the defendant." The defendant cannot be held accountable if the item did not escape and harm is nevertheless done.

For Example- The defendant's land contains certain toxic plants. The plaintiff's cattle consume leaves from the plant that have entered his land, leading to their demise. The loss will be the defendant's responsibility. On the other hand, the defendant would not be held accountable if the plaintiff's cattle entered the defendant's property, consumed the toxic leaves, and perished.

Un-natural use of the Land

For the rule of severe responsibility to apply, the hazardous object had to be moved into the area of unnatural use of the land. In the Rylands v. Fletcher case, the water collected in the reservoir was considered a non-natural use of the land. The Court held that while storing water for home consumption qualifies as a natural purpose, mill power storage does not. It is imperative to remember that to define what constitutes something "unnatural," there must be a particular application that endangers others.

Exceptions to the rule of Strict Liability

The Default of the Plaintiff-

The strict liability rule cannot be employed if the plaintiff's default or misconduct caused the injury.

According to the ruling in Ponting v. Noakes[3], the plaintiff's horse perished after it wandered onto the defendant's land and consumed some toxic foliage. The court decided that it was an illegal entry and that the defendant should not be held strictly liable for the damage.

By the Act of God-

An event that is not within the control of human agency is called an "act of God." Even with extraordinary caution and foresight, these kinds of behaviours cannot be halted because they are only the result of natural forces. Should the poisonous substance spill as a result of an unpredictable, uncontrollable natural calamity, the accused would not be accountable for the damages.

By the Action of any third party-

Additionally, the rule is not applicable in cases when a third party's actions resulted in damage. By "third party," it is understood that the individual is not the defendant's employee nor does the defendant have any kind of agreement or authority over their job. If the third party's behaviour is predictable, the defendant must take caution.

With the Consent of the aggrieved party

This exception states that the plaintiff forfeits any right of complaint and the strict responsibility rule does not apply if the plaintiff agrees to the defendant's property being used for the collection of dangerous objects. This exception follows the principle laid down by the maxim,’volenti non-fit injuria rule’. The plaintiff may give their express or implicit permission. When the plaintiff firmly expresses his consent, it is considered express consent.

The Rule of Absolute Liability

The Rule of Strict Liability minus the exceptions laid down by the rule leaves behind The Rule of Absolute Liability. The MC Mehta v Union of India case led to the evolution of the absolute liability rule in India.

In the case of MC Mehta v. Union of India, hazardous oleum gas leaked from a Shriram Foods & Fertilizer Industries facility. The surrounding industries and individuals have suffered significant harm due to the gas. The defendant would be accountable for the harm inflicted without taking into account the strict liability rule's exceptions, according to the Apex Court, which subsequently developed the concept of absolute culpability based on the strict liability rule.

There are never any situations when strict liability does not apply, according to the absolute liability rule. Consequently, individuals who damage others will be held completely responsible for making amends and compensating victims fairly. Indian courts have regularly used this rule to prevent it.

Difference between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

Differences

Strict Liability

Absolute Liability

Definition

When an accused individual introduces hazardous materials into the organization and those materials escape, causing injury to other individuals, strict liability is triggered.

When any type of organization employs hazardous or dangerous materials for profit-making activities and any harm is done to any third party during that time, they are fully liable.

Essentials

The concepts of Strict Liability include: unnatural use of land, dangerous material, and escape.

The following concepts are covered by absolute liability: enterprise, hazardous action, and escape not essential.

Parties affected

Strict Liability takes on the individual.

The business is undertaken by Absolute Liability.

Escape

Hazardous material escape is required.

Hazardous material escape is not required.

Evolution

Rylands Vs. Fletcher

MC Mehta Vs. Union of India

Exceptions

The exceptions for Strict liability are- the default of the plaintiff, By the act of God, By the action of any third party, With the consent of the aggrieved party

There are no exceptions as such in the Rule of Absolute Liability

Conclusion

The Rylands v. Fletcher landmark decision had a significant impact on tort law. In numerous cases when the defendant was not careless in inflicting the damage, the strict liability standard outlined in this ruling has been essential in settling the disagreement. Strict liability laws can be used to achieve that aim. It increases the owner's liability for any accidents brought on by the hazardous item he bought. It also ensures that every owner treats these kinds of dangerous traits with the proper prudence.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the conclusion of the case of Rylands v. Fletcher?

The Rylands v. Fletcher established the Rule of Strict Liability.

2. What is the meaning of the Rule of Strict Liability?

Strict liability holds people responsible for losses or damages caused by their products or actions, even if they weren't at fault or didn't intend to harm.

3. What is the meaning of the Act of God?

An event that is not within the control of human agency is called an "act of God." Even with extraordinary caution and foresight, these kinds of behaviours cannot be halted because they are only the result of natural forces.

4. What is the meaning of Absolute Liability?

When any type of organization employs hazardous or dangerous materials for profit-making activities and any harm is done to any third party during that time, they are fully liable.

5. What landmark judgment established the absolute liability clause?

The landmark Judgement that established the absolute liability is MC Mehta v. Union of India.

6. How does the Rylands v Fletcher rule differ from negligence?
Unlike negligence, which requires proof of a breach of duty of care, Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability. This means the plaintiff doesn't need to prove the defendant was careless; they only need to show that the dangerous substance escaped and caused damage.
7. What defenses are available against a Rylands v Fletcher claim?
The main defenses are: Act of God (force majeure), consent of the plaintiff, contributory negligence of the plaintiff, statutory authority, and common benefit (where the dangerous thing benefits both parties).
8. How has the application of Rylands v Fletcher evolved over time?
Over time, courts have narrowed the application of the rule. It's now typically limited to exceptionally dangerous activities or substances, and some jurisdictions have incorporated it into broader negligence principles or replaced it with more specific statutory regulations.
9. How does the concept of "foreseeability" apply in Rylands v Fletcher cases?
While foreseeability is crucial in negligence cases, it plays a different role in Rylands v Fletcher. The escape of the dangerous thing doesn't need to be foreseeable, but the type of damage caused should be of a kind that was foreseeable given the nature of the escaped substance.
10. How does the rule in Rylands v Fletcher relate to environmental law?
Rylands v Fletcher has been influential in the development of environmental law, particularly in cases involving pollution. It provides a basis for holding polluters strictly liable for environmental damage caused by the escape of harmful substances.
11. What was the original case of Rylands v Fletcher about?
The case involved a reservoir built on land leased by Rylands. The reservoir's water escaped through abandoned mine shafts and flooded Fletcher's nearby coal mine. The court held Rylands strictly liable for the damage, even though he wasn't negligent.
12. What is the relationship between nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher?
Rylands v Fletcher is often considered a special form of private nuisance. Both deal with interference with land use, but Rylands v Fletcher specifically addresses sudden, one-time escapes, while nuisance typically involves ongoing issues.
13. What is the significance of "escape" in Rylands v Fletcher?
"Escape" is a crucial element of the rule. It refers to the dangerous substance moving from a place where the defendant has control over it to a place where they do not. Without escape, there can be no liability under this rule.
14. How does the concept of "dangerous thing" in Rylands v Fletcher differ from "dangerous per se"?
A "dangerous thing" under Rylands v Fletcher doesn't have to be inherently dangerous (dangerous per se). It's about the risk created by accumulating the substance in large quantities or using it in a way that creates an unusual danger if it escapes.
15. How does the "coming to the nuisance" defense relate to Rylands v Fletcher?
The "coming to the nuisance" defense, where a plaintiff moves next to an existing nuisance, generally doesn't apply to Rylands v Fletcher cases. The focus is on the defendant's action in bringing the dangerous substance onto their land, not on when the plaintiff arrived.
16. Can a Rylands v Fletcher claim be made against a public authority?
Yes, public authorities can be subject to Rylands v Fletcher claims. However, they may have additional defenses, such as statutory authority, if they were acting within their legal powers and responsibilities.
17. Can a Rylands v Fletcher claim be made for economic loss?
Traditionally, Rylands v Fletcher applied to physical damage to property or person. Pure economic loss (financial loss without physical damage) is generally not recoverable under this rule, although some jurisdictions have expanded its scope.
18. How does the "reasonable user" test interact with Rylands v Fletcher?
The "reasonable user" test is sometimes used to determine if a use is "non-natural." If the use of land is deemed reasonable for the general benefit of the community, it might not be considered non-natural, potentially avoiding Rylands v Fletcher liability.
19. Can a Rylands v Fletcher claim be made against a tenant by a landlord?
Yes, a tenant can be liable under Rylands v Fletcher if they bring a dangerous substance onto the property and it escapes, causing damage. The rule applies to occupiers of land, which can include tenants.
20. How does the principle of "strict liability" in Rylands v Fletcher differ from "absolute liability"?
Strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher means the defendant is liable without proof of fault, but defenses are still available. Absolute liability, which is rarer, would mean the defendant is liable regardless of any defenses or extenuating circumstances.
21. What is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher establishes strict liability for damages caused by the escape of a dangerous thing brought onto land for non-natural use. This means the defendant is liable even without proof of negligence if they bring something onto their property that is likely to cause damage if it escapes.
22. What are the key elements required to establish liability under Rylands v Fletcher?
The key elements are: 1) The defendant brought something onto their land, 2) The thing was likely to cause damage if it escaped, 3) The defendant made a non-natural use of the land, and 4) The thing actually escaped and caused damage to the plaintiff.
23. What is meant by "non-natural use" in the context of Rylands v Fletcher?
"Non-natural use" refers to a use of land that is not ordinary or expected. It's typically an unusual or extraordinary use that introduces increased danger to others. For example, storing large quantities of water in a reservoir (as in the original case) was considered non-natural use.
24. Can a Rylands v Fletcher claim be made for personal injury?
Yes, the rule can apply to personal injury cases as well as property damage. If a dangerous substance escapes and causes personal injury, the strict liability principle of Rylands v Fletcher can be invoked.
25. Can Rylands v Fletcher be applied to natural substances on land?
Generally, no. The rule applies to substances or things brought onto the land by the occupier, not naturally occurring substances. However, if a natural substance is collected or stored in an artificial manner that increases risk, it might fall under the rule.
26. How does the "neighbor principle" from Donoghue v Stevenson relate to Rylands v Fletcher?
While both establish duties to others, they differ in approach. The neighbor principle in Donoghue v Stevenson is about reasonable foreseeability in negligence cases, while Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability regardless of foreseeability of the specific incident.
27. What is the significance of Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather plc in relation to Rylands v Fletcher?
This case clarified that foreseeability of damage is relevant in Rylands v Fletcher claims. It established that the defendant must have been able to foresee that the escape could cause the kind of damage that occurred, even if the specific incident wasn't foreseeable.
28. How does the concept of "ultra-hazardous activity" relate to Rylands v Fletcher?
"Ultra-hazardous activity" is a related concept in some jurisdictions, particularly in the US. It's similar to Rylands v Fletcher in imposing strict liability, but it focuses on inherently dangerous activities rather than the escape of dangerous substances.
29. What is the relevance of the defendant's knowledge in Rylands v Fletcher cases?
The defendant's knowledge of the dangerous nature of the substance is relevant, but not in the same way as in negligence cases. They don't need to know of the specific risk, but should be aware that the substance could cause damage if it escaped.
30. Can Rylands v Fletcher apply to cases involving fire?
Historically, fire was treated differently and often excluded from Rylands v Fletcher. However, modern interpretations in some jurisdictions have included fire if it results from the escape of a dangerous substance brought onto the land.
31. How does the concept of "remoteness of damage" apply in Rylands v Fletcher cases?
Remoteness of damage in Rylands v Fletcher cases is judged by whether the type of damage was foreseeable, not whether the specific incident was foreseeable. If the damage is of a kind that could be anticipated given the nature of the escaped substance, it's likely not too remote.
32. What is the significance of Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council in the evolution of Rylands v Fletcher?
This case reaffirmed the relevance of Rylands v Fletcher in modern law but emphasized that it should be seen as a sub-species of nuisance rather than a free-standing tort. It also clarified the requirements for "non-natural use" in contemporary contexts.
33. Can Rylands v Fletcher apply to cases involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?
Potentially, yes. If GMOs are considered a "dangerous thing" and their escape causes damage, Rylands v Fletcher could apply. This is an evolving area of law, and the application would depend on how courts interpret the nature and risks of GMOs.
34. How does the principle of "vicarious liability" interact with Rylands v Fletcher?
Vicarious liability can apply in Rylands v Fletcher cases. If an employee or agent of the land occupier is responsible for bringing the dangerous substance onto the land or for its escape, the employer/principal could be held vicariously liable under the rule.
35. What is the relevance of insurance in Rylands v Fletcher cases?
While insurance doesn't affect liability under Rylands v Fletcher, the availability of insurance for high-risk activities has influenced the development and application of the rule. Courts may consider the ability to insure against risks when determining what constitutes "non-natural use."
36. How does Rylands v Fletcher apply in cases of gradual leakage rather than sudden escape?
Traditionally, Rylands v Fletcher applied to sudden escapes. However, some modern interpretations have extended it to gradual leakages if they result from a non-natural use of land and the other elements of the rule are met.
37. Can Rylands v Fletcher apply to cases involving radioactive materials?
Yes, radioactive materials could certainly be considered a "dangerous thing" under Rylands v Fletcher. Their storage and use would likely be deemed non-natural, and any escape causing damage could lead to strict liability.
38. How does the concept of "res ipsa loquitur" relate to Rylands v Fletcher?
While both concepts can ease the burden on the plaintiff, they operate differently. Res ipsa loquitur creates an inference of negligence, while Rylands v Fletcher imposes strict liability without the need to prove negligence at all.
39. What is the significance of the "ordinary use" exception in Rylands v Fletcher cases?
The "ordinary use" exception means that if the use of land is ordinary and natural, Rylands v Fletcher doesn't apply. This helps balance the strict liability rule with the need for normal land use and development.
40. How does Rylands v Fletcher apply in cases involving underground water?
Generally, the rule doesn't apply to the natural percolation of underground water. However, if water is artificially collected and then escapes, causing damage, Rylands v Fletcher could potentially apply.
41. Can Rylands v Fletcher be applied in cases involving cyber security and data breaches?
This is a developing area of law. Some argue that data could be seen as a "dangerous thing" in certain contexts, and its "escape" through a breach could cause damage. However, courts have not widely accepted this application of Rylands v Fletcher to digital contexts.
42. How does the concept of "abnormally dangerous activities" in US law compare to Rylands v Fletcher?
The US concept of "abnormally dangerous activities" is similar to Rylands v Fletcher but focuses more on the inherent danger of the activity rather than the non-natural use of land. Both impose strict liability for resulting damages.
43. What is the relevance of consent in Rylands v Fletcher cases?
Consent can be a valid defense to a Rylands v Fletcher claim. If the plaintiff consented to the presence of the dangerous thing or the risk it posed, they may not be able to claim under this rule.
44. How does Rylands v Fletcher apply in cases involving shared or adjoining properties?
Rylands v Fletcher can apply between occupiers of adjoining properties. The key is whether one occupier has brought something dangerous onto their property that escapes and causes damage to the other property.
45. Can Rylands v Fletcher apply to cases involving noise pollution?
While noise pollution is typically dealt with under nuisance law, extreme cases might fall under Rylands v Fletcher if the noise source could be considered a "dangerous thing" brought onto the land for non-natural use.
46. How does the principle of "volenti non fit injuria" interact with Rylands v Fletcher?
The principle of "volenti non fit injuria" (no injury is done to a willing person) can be a defense in Rylands v Fletcher cases. If the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk, they may not be able to claim under this rule.
47. What is the significance of the defendant's intent in Rylands v Fletcher cases?
Unlike in intentional torts, the defendant's intent is not directly relevant in Rylands v Fletcher cases. The focus is on the nature of the use of land and the escape of the dangerous thing, not on the defendant's state of mind.
48. How does Rylands v Fletcher apply in cases involving natural disasters?
Natural disasters can sometimes be considered an "Act of God" defense in Rylands v Fletcher cases. However, if the defendant's actions increased the risk or impact of the natural disaster, they might still be held liable.
49. Can Rylands v Fletcher apply to cases involving animals?
While there are separate rules for liability for damage caused by animals, Rylands v Fletcher might apply if keeping the animals constitutes a non-natural use of land and they "escape" causing damage.
50. How does the concept of "reasonable foreseeability" in negligence law differ from foreseeability in Rylands v Fletcher?
In negligence, reasonable foreseeability relates to whether the defendant should have foreseen and prevented the specific harm. In Rylands v Fletcher, foreseeability relates more to whether the type of harm was a foreseeable consequence of the escape of the dangerous thing.
51. What is the relevance of statutory regulations in Rylands v Fletcher cases?
Statutory regulations can impact Rylands v Fletcher cases in two ways: they may provide a defense of statutory authority if the defendant was complying with regulations, or they may help define what constitutes "non-natural" use of land in modern contexts.
52. How does Rylands v Fletcher apply in cases involving multiple defendants?
In cases with multiple defendants, liability under Rylands v Fletcher would typically fall on the occupier of the land from which the dangerous thing escaped. However, complex situations might arise if multiple parties were involved in bringing or controlling the dangerous thing.
53. Can Rylands v Fletcher apply to cases involving psychological harm?
Traditionally, Rylands v Fletcher has been applied to physical damage to property or person. Application to pure psychological harm is not widely recognized, although this could evolve as understanding of psychological injuries develops.
54. How does the principle of "novus actus interveniens" interact with Rylands v Fletcher?
Novus actus interveniens (a new intervening act) can potentially break the chain of causation in Rylands v Fletcher cases. If an independent, unforeseeable event occurs between the escape and the damage, it might relieve the defendant of liability.
55. What is the significance of the plaintiff's actions in Rylands v Fletcher cases?
The plaintiff's actions can be relevant in Rylands v Fletcher cases. If the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the escape or the resulting damage, this might reduce or negate the defendant's liability under principles of contributory negligence or volenti non fit injuria.
Extinction of Liability

02 Jul'25 06:07 PM

Nuisance as a Tort

02 Jul'25 05:48 PM

Nature and Concept of Tort

02 Jul'25 05:45 PM

Legal Remedies in Tort

02 Jul'25 05:45 PM

Mistake in Torts

02 Jul'25 05:44 PM

Negligence in Tort

02 Jul'25 05:43 PM

Plaintiff: The Wrongdoer

02 Jul'25 05:42 PM

Strict Liability

02 Jul'25 05:42 PM

Articles

Back to top