Rylands v Fletcher [1868]
Owner of land was liable for nuisance arising when water from the owner’s reservoir flooded into a mine on neighbouring land.
The defendant occupied land near to where the claimant operated a coal mine, and the seams of the mine extended under the defendant's land. The seams had been previously worked but the tunnels and shafts had been cut off and forgotten about. The defendant obtained approval to construct a reservoir to provide water for his mill. The water from this reservoir permeated the old coal shafts beneath and flooded the plaintiff's mine.
The court found in favour of claimant on the basis of trespass and nuisance, but then the Court of Exchequer overturned this decision. The Court based its judgment on trespass, which requires direct human involvement in the invasion of an interest (the quiet enjoyment of land). This entails intent or negligence, and it was held that neither of these had occurred as the act of the defendant was reasonable and lawful and there was no with no ill-intent or negligence. There was no nuisance as there is nothing offensive to the senses about water. The claimant appealed to the Exchequor Chamber.
On appeal:
HELD: The issue was whether the law imposed an absolute duty upon an occupier to keep a potentially dangerous substance on his land, or whether the occupier would not be liable if he took reasonable and prudent precautions to do so. The Court said that "the person who for his own purpose brings on his lands …] anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril and is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."
Consequently, liability for nuisance is strict and it is no defence that the thing escaped without the defendant’s wilful act, default or neglect or even that he had no knowledge of its existence.
The Court therefore found in favour of the claimant, holding that the defendant was liable for nuisance. On further appeal by the defendant, the House of Lords confirmed the previous judgement but restricted the application of the strict liability nuisance rule to nuisance arising from non-natural use of the land.
The decision in this case changed the face of nuisance, and applied the doctrine of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities.
Citation: Rylands v. Fletcher [1868] LR 3 HL 330