A Level Law – Year 12 Knowledge Organiser
Topic: Rylands v Fletcher
Explanation/Significance:
● A tort in its own right
● This separate branch of nuisance is arguably a
form of strict liability
● Deals with dangerous activities and substances
● Taking an action is complicated and there are
many defences
● Traditionally, no need for the damage to be
reasonably foreseeable (in contrast to private
nuisance)
● The HoL has amended this making Rylands v
Fletcher (RvF) also subject to the same
requirement of reasonable foreseeability
Focus: the 4 constituent elements involved in establishing liability in torts connected to land (Rylands v Fletcher)
1) Brings on to the land
● Whatever causes the harm was not naturally on the
land-
● The ‘thing’ was brought onto the land
● Can include an accumulation of the ‘thing’ e.g. water
● D described as a ‘non-natural’ user in RvF
Law02 Section B: The Law of Tort
What you need to know:
✓ Explain how the four constituent parts of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher apply
✓ Understand how the law of tort in relation to Rylands v Fletcher has developed by reference to cases
✓ Evaluate problems with the law of tort in relation to Rylands v Fletcher
Key case: Rylands v Fletcher (1868)
Facts
D owned a mill and hired some contractors to excavate his land in order to create a reservoir to supply water to
the mill. The contractors were careless in their work and failed to fully block disused mineshafts that they
discovered while excavating the land. When the reservoir was filled the water flooded these mineshafts and
caused damage to C’s mine.
Held
“the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do
mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril”
D was liable because:
1. A large quantity of water was brought onto the land
2. The large volume had the potential to cause damage if it escaped
3. Storing water in such large quantities was a non-natural use of land
4. The water did escape, and did cause damage
2) Non-natural use of land
● D becomes a non-natural user of land when something is brought onto the land
● Usually narrowly interpreted to mean ‘abnormal’ Rickards v Lothian (1913)
● Many cases on non-natural use of land are decided on the issue of ‘escape’ Read v Lyons (1947)
● Factors to consider may include the quantity of material brought onto the land, the way in which it is stored,
the character of the locality Mason v Levy Autoparts (1967)
● HoL has tried to clarify the rule: needs to be an escape and a non-natural use of land Transco v Stockport BC
 A Level Law – Year 12 Knowledge Organiser
● Suggests an unusual activity or a special use of land
● Many cases fail on this point
Examples of cases:
Giles v Walker (1890)
Law02 Section B: The Law of Tort
(2004)
● Claims for death or personal injury are outside this rule as they do not relate to land Corby Group Litigation v
Corby BC (2008)
LMS International Ltd v Styrene Packaging & Insulation Ltd (2005) restated criteria stated in Transco:
➢ D must have brought on something likely to do mischief
➢ D’s actions must arise from a non-natural use of land
➢ The action must be foreseeable

Focus: the 4 constituent elements involved in establishing liability in torts connected to land (Rylands v Fletcher)
3) Likely to cause mischief 4) If the thing escapes

● Whatever is brought onto the land must be dangerous
in some way but only if it escapes
● This means ordinary things can be included e.g. water,
gas, fire, animals Shiffman v Grand Priory of St John
(1936)
● Whatever is brought onto the land must cause damage off the land (have escaped) Read v Lyons (1947)
● The escape does not have to be from land Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996):
escape was from a boat
● If damage is foreseeable, D will be liable no matter how much care is taken
● BUT causation is also important: if the damage is not foreseeable there is no liability Cambridge Water
Co v Eastern Counties Leather (1994)

Defences Remedies Evaluating Rylands v Fletcher

● Statutory authority
If something is permitted under an
Act of Parliament this may be a
defence Transco v Stockport BC
(2004)
● An act of God breaks the chain
of causation
Used where D has no control over
some force of nature Nichols v
Marsland (1876)
● An act of a stranger breaks the
chain of causation
● General ● Law Commission report 1970 described law on this tort as ‘complex, uncertain and inconsistent in
damages principle’
● Special ● Transco v Stockport BC HoL stated the definition of ‘natural’ use of land was ‘broad and ill-defined’
damages ● Nuisance may be easier to be prove as it only requires use to be ‘unreasonable’ rather than ‘unnatural’
● Injunctions ● If there is no escape, occupier’s liability may be an alternative claim
● There has been conflict in rulings using RvF: Hale v Jennings (1938) allowed a claim for personal injury
which Transco (2004) has now excluded
● Another conflict in past cases over allowing claims for a person without an interest in the land: allowed
in Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd (1996) but Transco suggests should not be allowed
● RvF is a strict liability tort: D will be liable even if not at fault- C must prove escape and damage rather
than negligence
● Is RvF necessary when there are so many statute laws covering hazardous activities?
● There is overlap with nuisance and negligence- so if RvF necessary?
A Level Law – Year 12 Knowledge Organiser Law02 Section B: The Law of Tort
An unforeseeable act by someone ● There are so many defences that cases under RvF are unlikely to succeed
else Rickards v Lothian (1913), Hale v
Jennings (1938), Perry v Kendricks
(1956)

● Default of claimant
C has done/failed to do something
which causes the damage

● Contributory negligence
C is partly to blame for the damage

● Consent
C consents to the accumulation by D

● Common benefit
If the accumulation benefits C as well
as D