Strict Liability: Rylands v Fletcher and Its Exceptions

In one line

An English rule of 1868 that made a defendant liable without fault, and five exceptions that swallowed it, which is why India replaced it.

In exam wording: the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is that a 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, and if he does not is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape; the rule requires a non-natural user of the land; and it is subject to exceptions of the plaintiff's own default, act of God, act of a stranger, consent of the plaintiff, and statutory authority.

The rule

The classic statement, in the Court of Exchequer Chamber and approved in the House of Lords:

The 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.

The House of Lords added the qualification that gave the rule its shape: the use of the land must be a non-natural one, that is, a special use bringing with it increased danger, and not the ordinary use of land or such a use as is proper for the general benefit of the community.

The four ingredients

Learn them as four, because an examination answer is marked on whether all four are addressed.

One, a dangerous thing. Something likely to do mischief if it escapes. Water in a reservoir, gas, electricity, explosives, chemicals, sewage, fire, and in the decided cases even a flag-pole and a chair-o-plane.

Two, brought and collected and kept. The thing must be brought onto the land by the defendant. Something naturally there, such as rock, thistles or rainwater, is outside the rule.

Three, escape. It must escape from a place where the defendant has occupation or control to a place outside it. Harm caused to a person on the defendant's own land is outside the rule and belongs to negligence or occupiers' liability.

Four, non-natural user. A special use bringing increased danger, not the ordinary use of land.

The fourth ingredient is where the rule was quietly destroyed. "Non-natural" came to be interpreted as not ordinary in the time and place and community, so that a use common in an industrial district was held natural, and a use "for the general benefit of the community" was excluded. Storing water for a mill was non-natural in 1868; storing chemicals in an industrial estate a century later was often held natural. The requirement that was meant to define the rule became the means of escaping it.