It was an english case in year 1868 and was progenitor of the doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous conditions and activities. Shepherd 1773 and the emergence of the tort of negligence selden society. The merits of rylands v fletcher by john murphy ssrn. Rylands v fletcher 1868 ukhl 1 was a decision by the house of lords which established a new area of english tort law. Application of the rule of rylands vs fletcher in nigeria. What is the significants of rylands vs fletcher in tort law.
Rylands v fletcher 1868 case summary webstroke law. In order to supply it with water, they leased some land from lord wilton and built a reservoir on it. Plaintiff owned and operated a mine adjacent to which defendant constructed an artificial pond. The renowned case of rylands v fletcher law commercial essay. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. While excavating, the defendants contractors found several old mine shafts which had been filled with soil. Water from the reservoir filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage. D employed an engineer and contractor to build the reservoir. In rylands v fletcher 1868 lr 3 hl 330, the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land. The defendants, mill owners in the coal mining area of lancashire, had constructed a reservoir on their land.
Should one be liable under the law of tort, a violation of their legal duty must be proven in court in negligence. For many years it has been argued that rylands v fletcher is a tort of strict liability. Dfs ornamental pools burst and flooded neighbours land after sudden and unprecedented rainfall court ec found for df, as act of god, or the kings enemies excuse liability. The rule in rylands v fletcher jason neyers, 24 jul 2006. Hence, in certain cases, claimants have solely relied upon rylands v fletcher to. However, some academicians have termed the case as describing a novel form of liability all its own. In the recent case of stannard v gore 2012 ewca civ 1248 judgment 4. Rylands v fletcher is a common law rule of strict liability in tort which stems from judgment of blackburn j. Burnie port authority v general jones pty ltd jeannie marie paterson since 1866, the rule in rylands v fletcher has been used to impose liability on an owner or occupier of land for damage caused by the escape of a dangerous thing from the land, regardless of whether or not the owner or occupier was negligent.
Fletcher brought a claim under nuisance, through which the case eventually went to the exchequer of pleas. Imposing liability without proof of negligence is controversial and therefore a restrictive approach has been taken with regards to liability under rylands v fletcher. Liability under rylands v fletcher is now regarded as a particular type of nuisance. Default of plf act of god kings or queens enemies rylands. It applies in situations where someone brings something on to their land in furtherance of a nonnatural use of their land, which if it escaped would render that person. All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a. A person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. When the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts improperly filled with debris, they chose to continue work rather than properly blocking them up. Fletcher in america, while there was an abundance of streams capable of furnishing any required amount of water power, there was of course, when the country was first settled, an entire absence of ancient mills privileged to erect dams upon them had the. Rylands v fletcher has become what may be termed a pivotal case on a number of topics in tort law. The latter caused a mineshaft collapse, which resulted in a flood, and damaged.
It may seem a threshing out of old straw to discuss again the case of rylands v. While excavating, the defendants contractors found several old. Oct 22, 20 the law of nuisance from this case is a specific tort. Ryland prima facie answerable for not getting rid of anything likely to do mischief if it escapes. In 1860, rylands paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land, intending that it should supply the ainsworth mill with water. Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir, playing no active role in its construction. The distinctiveness of rylands v fletcher by donal nolan. Fletcher, the only other work to assess thoroughly. May 10, 2016 application of the rule of rylands vs fletcher in nigeria. Fletcher is applicable in nigeria through numerous court decisions. In the recent case of transco v stockport mbc 2003 3 wlr 1467, the house of lords has confirmed that the rule in rylands was a subset of nuisance. A law student studying the topic of rylands v fletcher would be forgiven for thinking that the rule must be invoked on a daily basis in the four courts given the amount of paper and energy expended in trying to explain the operation of the rule. The following cases relate to australia a commonwealth country where the case in rylands and fletcher has been modified. It was the extension, approved in rylands v fletcher, that enabled the law of nuisance also to be applied, given certain preconditions, to one off incidents.
Feb 23, 2011 background rylands vs fletcher is one of the most famous and a landmark case in tort. Defendant contracts to build a reservoir on his land, which is located on top of old coal mines that are connected to the mines constructed by the plaintiff on a separate parcel of land. However, in western common law jurisdictions, the recent trend has been to impose ever more stringent conditions on the use of the rule. Chemical supplys liability rylands v fletcher established that a person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. What is the significants of rylands vs fletcher in tort.
In america particularly the discussion may appear of only academic value in view of the very small number of jurisdictions. Liability under the rule is triggered if a person brings onto his land and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes. John rylands and jehu horrocks plaintiffs v thomas fletcher defendant the lord chancellor lord cairns. The reservoir fails, and water falls into the old mines, eventually flooding plaintiffs mines. Rylands v fletcher tort is a strict liability tort making liable any land owner who stores items of mischief which escape and cause damage to a landowner who suffers damage as a result of that escape if the escape was not caused by an act of god or the claimant. In this case, during the cause of oil exploration by the defendant, it blocked a stream from. Fletcher 31s common law liability for the escape of cattle had been declared unfitted to the prevailing conditions. A tort is a civil wrong committed against another person or property the rule in rylands covers situations where damage is caused arising from the escape of dangerous things from the defendants land in the course of a nonnatural use of land. The breach of the duty was the actual and proximate cause of the injury. Fletcher 1868, which held that anyone who in the course of nonnatural use of his land accumulates thereon for his own purposes anything likely to do mischief if it escapes is answerable for all direct damage thereby caused. Fletcher 1866 lr 1 exch 265, 1868 lr 3 hl 330 lays down a rule of strict liability for harm caused by escapes from land applied to exceptionally hazardous purposes.
The claimant, an auctioneer, brought an action under rylands v fletcher for loss of profit he would have made had the cattle not been so affected. Although historically it seems to have been an offshoot of the law of nuisance, it is sometimes said to differ from nuisance in that its concern is with escapes from land rather than interference with land. The most popular of these is the case of umudje vs. My lords, in this case the plaintiff i may use the description of the parties in the action is the occupier of a. The popular assertion in this country has been that the rule is really only a subspecies of the law of private nuisance. The rule in rylands v fletcher rylands is a tort of interference with land. The law of nuisance and the rule in rylands v fletcher. The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to seal them properly. Burnie port authority v general jones pty ltd 1994 according to weinrib, ernest 2003, an independent contractors employee welding negligently caused a fire that the caused damage to the defendants premises. There is no liability for economic loss under rylands v fletcher. It has its roots in nuisance and in reality most claimants are likely to plead nuisance as an alternative to rylands v fletcher. The scc found that a section in the civil code had ample scope to support the liability of the quebec power co. The rule in rylands v fletcher in the case of rylands v fletcher the defendants rylands had a reservoir. The damage suffered by the plaintiff must be foreseeable by the.
The law is plain that there is n in the case of traffic on the highway unless negli affirmatively shown. The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land. In this case, the coal shafts were not blocked up and there was a recognisable danger to fletcher s mine. Rylands v fletcher tort law lecture notes law teacher. It is a form of strict liability, in that the defendant may be liable in the absence of any negligent conduct on their part. In effect, the case holds that rylands v fletcher was not a separate cause of action in its own right, but was, in fact, a specific application of the law of nuisance. It is argued, however, that the offshoot theory should be rejected, since 1 analysis of the rylands v fletcher case provides little support for the theory. Fletcher 18681 lr 3 hl 330 is a landmark english legal case in which the court of the exchequer chamber first applied the doctrine of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities on appeal by rylands, the house of lords confirmed the previous judgment but restricted the rule to a nonnatural user of the land. When the reservoir burst, the water travelled through these shafts and damaged fletcher s mine.
Defendant employed independent contractors and engineers to excavate and build the reservoir. This divergence of latitude is exhibited with great distinct ness in the cases dealing with the right of riparian owners to the use of the stream and its water. The merits of rylands v fletcher john murphy abstractenglish and australian judges have, over the past few decades, severely questioned the juridical distinctiveness and utility of the rule in rylands v fletcher. Fletcher, that anyone who in the course of nonnatural use of his land accumulates thereon for his own purposes.
Prosser, handbook on the law of torts 70, at 480 1964. Essay about rylands v fletcher case analysis 1054 words. A virus escaped from the ds premises and affected cattle rendering them unsaleable. Prosser, describing the rule in rylands v fletcher. The impact of rylands v fletcher in quebec law, which is based for historical reasons on the civil code, was evaluated by the supreme court of canada in the 1916 case of vandry et al. Alternately, he was strictly liable under the rule in rylands v fletcher lr 3 hl 330. Defendant constructed a reservoir to supply water for his mill.
828 1157 510 904 523 673 1451 752 203 1200 741 975 731 713 1386 59 1022 559 217 1611 1553 226 1054 562 905 111 655 36 618 80 216 1355 375 1017 876 331 387 844 538 99 379 1045 860 1410 749 1007 1262 761 1379