The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Establishing Liability

When is the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Applicable?

A defendant is liable under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1866) LR 1 Exch 265 if:

He is the occupier of land;
He uses that land in a non-natural way;
As a result of this a dangerous thing escapes the land;
The escape of that dangerous thing causes damage to another; and
The kind of damage caused was reasonably foreseeable.

What is ‘Non-Natural’ Use?

Use is non-natural if the defendant was doing something which he ought to have realised, judging by the standards of the relevant place or time, was ‘extraordinary’ and ‘unusual’ and which gave rise to an exceptionally high risk of danger or mischief if there was an escape: Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. It is not relevant that an escape was unlikely or that the defendant’s use was reasonable. Relevant factors indicating the use is (according to the House of Lords in Transco) natural include:

There is statutory regulation that appears to provide an ‘exhaustive code’ for regulating the activity.

The claimant might reasonably be expected to insure against the risk himself (if possible at reasonable cost).

The risk posed by the activity is no greater than similar ‘ordinary’ activities.

The defendant was under a statutory duty to engage in the activity.

What is a ‘Dangerous Thing?’

The definition of dangerous is very broad, covering anything which has the tendency to cause harm. However, an activity will only be dangerous if it tends to pose a risk of harm if used in the way the defendant is using it. For example, storing water behind a dam is dangerous, but bringing water onto land as part of ordinary domestic water supplies is not: Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263.

The dangerous thing must have been ‘brought onto the land’: this excludes liability for accidentally lit fires. See: Gore v Stannard [2014] QB 1.

What is an ‘Escape’?

Something ‘escapes’ from land if it moves from a ‘place the defendant has occupation or control of’ to a ‘place which is outside his occupation of control’: Read v Lyons [1947] AC 156. If the dangerous thing only causes harm within the defendant’s land, therefore, there is no escape.

When is the Damage ‘Reasonably Foreseeable’?

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher has been classified by the House of Lords in Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 2 AC 264 as a species of nuisance. This means that the type of harm suffered must be reasonably foreseeable. There is no requirement that the escape is foreseeable, however.

Defences

The following defences are relevant to liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher:

Act of God

This defence applies where the escape was caused by natural causes which were entirely unforeseeable: Nichols v Marsland (1876) 2 ExD 1; Rickards v Lothian [1913] AC 263.

Third-Party Intervention

Hacker, intervention, third-party attack

This defence applies where the cause of the escape was the deliberate act of the third-party over whom the defendant had no control and whose intervention was not a ‘reasonable and probable consequence’ of the defendant’s actions which he ought to have guarded against: Perry v Kendricks Transport [1956] 1 WLR 85.

Remedies

Since the rule in Rylands v Fletcher has been characterised as a species of nuisance, the claimant can only claim if his interests in land have been damaged: Transco v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 2 AC 1. The other rules relating to claiming remedies in nuisance also presumably apply.

Nuisance & Rylands v Fletcher Quiz

Test yourself on the principles of nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher.

1 / 23

When is planning permission relevant to whether a defendant's activity is a nuisance?

If it shows that the nature of the locality is changing or has changed, it can indicate reasonableness

It shows that the defendant's activity may be reasonable

It is never relevant to whether the defendant's activity is a nuisance

2 / 23

Which four factors indicate that the defendant's use of land is 'unreasonable' for the purposes of public or private nuisance?

The nuisance is intense or unusual for the locale

The defendant acted with malice

The defendant knew that their activity is affecting the claimant

The claimant is using their land for a particularly sensitive purpose, and the defendant is aware of this

The defendant did not seek prior approval from the claimant

The defendant did not have planning permission

The nuisance is repeated or continuing

The nuisance happens at unreasonable times or for unreasonable lengths

3 / 23

What are the four matters the claimant must show to establish the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

The claimant was not a trespasser on the defendant's land

The defendant did not act as the reasonable person would

The defendant used the land in an unreasonable way

A dangerous thing escaped the land due to non-natural use

Reasonably foreseeable damage was caused

The defendant used his land in a non-natural way

The claimant's use of their land was unusually sensitive

The defendant is the occupier of the land

4 / 23

The default rule is that an injunction will be granted to restrain any public or private nuisance. True or false?

5 / 23

When does a dangerous thing 'escape' for the purposes of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

When it moves from within the defendant's occupation to outside of it

When it leaves its container or enclosure

When it causes harm to another person

When it moves from one part of the defendant's land to another

6 / 23

Who can bring an action for public nuisance? (Two answers)

The Attorney-General

Any private individual affected by the nuisance

The Secretary of State

Land owners adjacent to the nuisance

Private individuals who have suffered loss above and beyond others' losses

7 / 23

In private nuisance, what is the effect on the assessment of reasonableness that the claimant's use was especially sensitive to the nuisance?

If the use would be considered unreasonable to a normal claimant, then it has no impact, otherwise the use is reasonable

It means that the use was unreasonable

It means that the claimant can recover aggravated damages

It means that the use was reasonable

8 / 23

What forms of damage are not recoverable in private nuisance? (Two answers)

Injury which affects the claimant but not the land

Lowering of the land's economic value

Lowering of the land's amenity value

Property damage

Personal injury

9 / 23

What factors indicate that a use is 'natural' for the purposes of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher? (Four answers)

That escape was unlikely

The activity does not pose greater risk than similar, ordinary activities

The use of the land was not artificial

The claimant might reasonably be expected to insure against the risk

There exists exhaustive statutory regulation for regulating the activity

The defendant was statutorily required to do the activity

That the defendant's use is reasonable

10 / 23

Can a person sue in private nuisance if they do not have a property interest in affected land?

11 / 23

Which four factors indicate that a defendant's actions are 'reasonable' for the purposes of private and public nuisance?

The nuisance takes place at a reasonable time for a reasonable length

The nuisance is low in intensity

The defendant is unaware of the impact on the claimant

The nuisance does not happen often

The claimant was aware of the activity before they moved in

The defendant has planning permission

The nature of the locality makes the use normal

12 / 23

What kind of tort is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher?

Its own tort

A type of negligence tort

A type of nuisance tort

13 / 23

To establish public or private nuisance, does the claimant need to show that the defendant had a property interest in the land?

14 / 23

If the defendant did not directly cause a nuisance themselves, what must that the claimant show to demonstrate the defendant is responsible for a private nuisance? (Two answers)

That the defendant had a property interest in the land

That the nuisance was caused by a third-party contractor of the defendant

That the nuisance was a naturally occurring event or object on the land

That the defendant occupied the land

That the defendant continued or adopted the nuisance

15 / 23

The defendant is being sued for breach of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The escape was caused by the deliberate act of a third party. Is the defendant liable?

Yes, unless the third party was an employee acting in the course of their employment

Yes

No, unless the third party was acting in a way which was beneficial to the defendant's enterprise

Yes, unless the third party was entirely independent and their acts not a probable consequence of the defendant's acts

16 / 23

What does it mean if the defendant adopted a private nuisance?

That the defendant failed to take reasonable care to verify that there were no nuisances on his land

That the defendant used the thing causing the nuisance, when he knew or ought to have known he was using it and that it caused a nuisance

That the defendant failed to get rid of a nuisance which he knew or ought to have known was there and a nuisance

17 / 23

What three matters must the claimant establish to show that the defendant has committed private nuisance against them?

The defendant has failed to take reasonable care

A substantial and unreasonable interference

The defendant used land

The defendant has caused personal injury

The defendant has affected land in which the claimant has a property interest

The defendant did not have planning permission or state authorisation for his activities

18 / 23

What does it mean if the defendant continued a private nuisance?

That the defendant used the thing causing the nuisance, when he knew or ought to have known he was using it and that it caused a nuisance

That the defendant failed to get rid of a nuisance which he knew or ought to have known was there and a nuisance

That the defendant failed to take reasonable care to verify that there were no nuisances on his land

19 / 23

Can a person sue in public nuisance if they do not have a property interest in affected land?

20 / 23

For the purposes of establishing the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, what is a non-natural use?

The use was particularly dangerous

In context, it is extraordinary or unusual with an exceptionally high risk of danger on escape

In context, it is an artificial use of the land

The use was likely to cause a dangerous thing to escape

21 / 23

What must be shown to establish public nuisance?

That the actions of the defendant are extremely unreasonable, given the nature of the locality

That over one hundred individuals have made a complaint about the activity to the attorney general, who deems it unreasonable

The activity causes physical harm to multiple claimants' land

The activity materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of the public or obstructs common rights

22 / 23

What three factors indicate that damages in lieu of an injunction should be granted in an injunction claim?

Damages at trial would not adequately compensate the defendant for the effect of the injunction

The claimant’s injury could be adequately compensated by a small compensation payment

The balance of convenience favours a grant of damages

In the circumstances of the case it would be oppressive to the defendant to grant an injunction

The claimant's loss is small and pecuniary

23 / 23

If the escape in issue in a Rylands v Fletcher kind of case was caused by an act of nature, is the defendant liable?

Yes, unless the natural event was completely unforeseeable

Yes

Yes, unless the natural event was improbable

Yes, unless precautions would be too costly

Your score is

Tort: Rylands v Fletcher

The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Establishing Liability

When is the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Applicable?

What is ‘Non-Natural’ Use?

What is a ‘Dangerous Thing?’

What is an ‘Escape’?

When is the Damage ‘Reasonably Foreseeable’?

Defences

Act of God

Third-Party Intervention

Remedies

Like this:

The Rule in Rylands v Fletcher

Establishing Liability

When is the Rule in Rylands v Fletcher Applicable?

What is ‘Non-Natural’ Use?

What is a ‘Dangerous Thing?’

What is an ‘Escape’?

When is the Damage ‘Reasonably Foreseeable’?

Defences

Act of God

Third-Party Intervention

Remedies

Share this:

Like this: