Rylands v Fletcher (1868) – The defendant built a reservoir on his land. Unknown to him, old mine shafts beneath connected to the claimant’s mines. When the reservoir burst, water flooded the claimant’s property.

Held: The defendant was liable even though he had not been negligent. Anyone who keeps something likely to cause harm if it escapes must do so at their own risk.

To succeed under Rylands v Fletcher, the claimant must prove:

1. Accumulation – The defendant brought or kept something on their land.

• Must be a voluntary act (Giles v Walker [1890] – no liability for naturally growing thistles).

2. Likely to do mischief if it escapes – The thing must be inherently dangerous.

• Examples: water, gas, chemicals, explosives (Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board [1878] – overhanging yew trees poisoned livestock).

3. Non-natural use of land – Use that is unusual, extraordinary, or increases risk.

• Rickards v Lothian [1913] – domestic water pipes were a natural use; no liability.

• Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] – large chemical storage was a non-natural use.

4. Escape – The dangerous thing must move from the defendant’s land to the claimant’s.

• Read v Lyons [1947] – explosion inside factory without anything leaving the land was not an escape.

5. Damage – The escape must cause foreseeable damage of the relevant type.

• Cambridge Water [1994] confirmed foreseeability of damage is required, aligning the rule with modern negligence principles.

A defendant can avoid liability if one of the recognised defences applies:

• Consent (volenti non fit injuria) – claimant consented to the accumulation or use.

• Act of a stranger – interference by a third party beyond the defendant’s control (Rickards v Lothian).

• Act of God (vis major) – natural event so exceptional it could not reasonably be foreseen or prevented (Nichols v Marsland [1876] – floods destroyed bridges).

• Statutory authority – activity authorised by legislation (Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co [1894]).

• Default of the claimant – claimant’s own actions contributed to the escape.

Modern courts treat Rylands v Fletcher as a subset of nuisance dealing with isolated but serious escapes of dangerous substances.

• Transco plc v Stockport MBC [2003] – water leakage from a pipe was a natural use of land; the rule was confirmed but confined to extraordinary, hazardous activities.

Thus, Rylands v Fletcher rarely applies today outside of exceptional cases (e.g. chemical or industrial escapes).