Hello,

Rylands v. Fletcher laid down a rule of strict liability for harm caused by escapes from land applied to exceptionally hazardous purposes. While historically it seemed to have a growth in the law of nuisance, it sometimes says to differ from nuisance as its concern is with escapes from land rather than interference with land. Therefore, some authorities discuss that there is no need like that in the offense of nuisance that the prosecutor be the owner or occupier of the land affected by the escape. If this was so, the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher can be thought to have a role in protecting not just interests in real property but also interests in the person and in personal property.

Hope this helps...