← The hardest concepts in United Kingdom law
In one breath
The rule in Rylands v Fletcher makes a person who, in a non-natural use of their land, accumulates something likely to do mischief if it escapes liable for the damage caused when it does escape. It is now treated as a branch of private nuisance, protects interests in land, and requires that damage of the relevant kind was foreseeable.
The picture
The overflowing bath upstairs
An upstairs neighbour runs a bath and empties it. Neighbours below put up with that, because ordinary household use is part of living side by side. But suppose the neighbour installs a huge water tank for a business of their own and it bursts, flooding the flat below. They answer for the damage even if they took reasonable care, because the danger is the thing they chose to keep and the harm is what escaped.
The rule has the same parts. There must be an accumulation by the defendant, in the course of a non-natural use of their land, of something likely to do mischief if it escapes. There must be an escape from land under the defendant’s control to the claimant’s land. The damage must be of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable (Cambridge Water). Defences include the act of a stranger, the claimant’s consent and statutory authority.
Where the picture stops working
A bath is easy to picture, but “non-natural” is a matter of context: what is ordinary in a mill town differs from a village. The rule is narrow and seldom succeeds; claimants more often rely on nuisance and negligence. It covers interests in land, so it is not a route to damages for personal injury (Transco). Scots law has not adopted the rule as such and deals with these cases through nuisance and negligence.
How it really works
- 1Identify the claimant’s interest. The rule protects rights in land, so look for damage to the land or its enjoyment.
- 2Identify what the defendant brought onto and kept on the land: something likely to do mischief if it escaped.
- 3Ask whether the use of land was non-natural: an extraordinary or unusual use, judged by what is ordinary in that place and time. Ordinary domestic use does not qualify (Transco).
- 4Require an escape from the defendant’s land into the claimant’s, not just damage on the defendant’s own property.
- 5Ask whether damage of the relevant kind was reasonably foreseeable (Cambridge Water), and then consider the defences.
Why people get it wrong
- Treating the rule as a general strict liability for anything dangerous. It is limited by non-natural use, escape and foreseeability.
- Using the rule for personal injury. The leading modern decision ties it to interests in land.
- Believing that reasonable care is a defence in itself. Liability is not based on fault, though foreseeability of damage is required.
- Assuming the rule applies throughout the United Kingdom. It is an English doctrine, and Scots law does not use it.
A worked example
The facts are invented
Brae Farm Ltd builds a very large reservoir for slurry from a new intensive unit beside a village. A heavy rainstorm of ordinary severity makes the bank give way, and the slurry floods Ela’s garden and kills her orchard.
Brae accumulated something likely to do mischief if it escaped, in a use of land that is extraordinary for that setting, and it escaped onto Ela’s land causing damage of a foreseeable kind. Brae may be liable though it took reasonable care. Compare a householder whose ordinary garden pond overflows after a storm: that is a natural use, and the rule does not apply.
Try it
A homeowner’s ordinary central-heating tank leaks without anyone being careless and damages the flat below. Under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, is the homeowner liable?
Landmark authorities
Read the sources themselves; this list is a starting point.
- Rylands v Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL 330
- Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc, [1994] 2 AC 264
- Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, [2003] UKHL 61, [2004] 2 AC 1
Where to go next
Courses
Case briefs
Dictionary
More hard concepts in United Kingdom law
- Duty of care and the incremental approach (Tort law)
- Causation: the but-for test and its exceptions (Tort law)
- Remoteness of damage (Tort law)
- Vicarious liability (Tort law)
- The three certainties of an express trust (Trusts and equity)
This page is an educational overview. It is not legal advice and not a substitute for the sources: the statute, the rule, the case itself. The United Kingdom has three legal systems: England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. These pages mostly describe the law of England and Wales and say where Scots law differs when it clearly does; Northern Ireland law is often similar to English law but is not covered separately. Parliament is sovereign, but the devolved legislatures also make law within their powers. Each page states the usual formulation of the rule and names landmark decisions; check the primary sources before relying on any rule.