Tortious liability under Rylands v Fletcher
Liability under Rylands v Fletcher is now regarded as a particular type of nuisance. It is a form of strict liability, in that the defendant may be liable in the absence of any negligent conduct on their part. Imposing liability without proof of negligence is controversial and therefore a restrictive approach has been taken with regards to liability under Rylands v Fletcher. There have been attempts to do away with liability under Rylands v Fletcher but the House of Lords have retained it.
Requirements
1. Accumulation on the defendant's land
2. A thing likely to do mischief if it escapes
3. Escape
4. Non-natural use of land
5. The damage must not be too remote
1. Accumulation
The defendant must bring the hazardous material on to his land and keep it there.
If the thing is already on the land or is there naturally, no liability will arise under Rylands v Fletcher:
Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997) 81 BLR 101 Case summary
The thing must be accumulated for the defendant's own purposes:
Pearson v North Western Gas Board [1968] 2 All ER 669 Case summary
The thing that escapes need not be the thing accumulated:
2. A thing likely to do mischief
The thing need not be inherently hazardous, it need only be a thing likely to cause damage if it escapes:
Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John [1936] 1 All ER 557 Case summary
3. Escape
There must be an escape from the defendant's land. An injury inflicted by the accumulation of a hazardous substance on the land itself will not invoke liability under Rylands v Fletcher:
The courts have not always strictly applied this requirement:
Shiffman v The Grand Priory of St John [1936] 1 All ER 557 Case summary
4. Non-natural use
Ellison v Ministry of Defence (1997) 81 BLR 101 Case summary
An open fire in a domestic fire grate does not constitute a non-natural use of land:
5. Remoteness of damage
Liability in Rylands v Fletcher is subject to the rules on remoteness of damage. This point was established in the Cambridge Water case:
There is no liability for economic loss under Rylands v Fletcher:
Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute [1966]
1 QB 569 Case summary
Defences
Act of stranger
If the escape was caused by the act of a stranger over which the defendant has no control, the defendant will escape liability:
If however, the act which caused the escape was committed by a person over whom the defendant may exercise some control the defendant may still be liable:
Wrongful act of a third party
Act of God
Statutory authority
Charing Cross Electric Supply Co v Hydraulic Power Co [1914] 3 KB 772 Case summary
Consent/benefit
If the claimant receives a benefit from the thing accumulated, they may be deemed to have consented to the accumulation:
Liability under Rylands v Fletcher
| 
