This article has been written by Vani Shende pursuing a Diploma in International Business Law course from LawSikho.

Introduction 

The case of Rylands vs. Fletcher is a landmark British judgement in tort law history. Let’s first  understand the meaning of tort. A tort is a wrongful act or failure to act that causes injury or harm to another person or breaches another person’s civil rights and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts may impose liability. 

In English Common Law, negligence is a tort, among others, which occurs when someone causes an injury or a loss to another due to their reckless or careless behaviour. The general rule is that the person who causes such an injury shall pay damages to the affected party. This rule, when strictly applied, can pose numerous challenges. 

Download Now

For instance, if I store fireworks in my garage and they accidentally ignite, causing damage to  neighbouring properties, without my negligence or knowledge. Can I be held liable? 

The rule of strict liability propounded through Rylands vs. Fletcher makes answering this question easier.  

Background

  • Thomas Rylands: The defendant was a mill owner, who had hired contractors and engineers for the construction of a reservoir at a site adjacent to the plaintiff’s property. 
  • John Fletcher: The plaintiff held a lease for Red House Colliery, a set of coal mines and was in charge of operating the said mines. 
  • The lawsuit: Fletcher initiated legal action against Rylands for damage caused to his coal mines due to the latter’s negligence. 

Facts of the case 

The defendant employed engineers and contractors to construct a new reservoir. During the process of excavation for the new reservoir, the contractors found five old vertical shafts and horizontal passages, but they failed to properly seal off these shafts.  

The plaintiff had come across the old and disused shafts during his workings and had worked his mines up to the spot where they met with the forgotten passages, which were connected with the shafts right beneath the construction site. 

After the construction of the reservoir, once it was partially filled with water, one of the shafts gave way and the water flooded the Red House Colliery through the underground passages.  Consequentially, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the loss caused to him due to the defendant’s negligence. 

Issues raised 

  • Whether there was negligence on the part of the defendant. 
  • Whether the defendant was to be held liable for the negligence of the contractor. 
  • Whether the plaintiff was eligible to receive damages from the defendant. 

Judicial proceedings 

The Court of Liverpool 

The case was first brought to trial at the Court of Liverpool, which sided with the defendant, stating that there was no trespass or nuisance. Later, an arbitrator appointed by court order also ruled in favour of the defendant, noting that the defendant couldn’t be held liable due to lack of knowledge about the mine shafts. However, the arbitrator found the contractors responsible for negligence.

Court of Exchequer of Pleas 

The case was then argued in the Court of Exchequer, where it was examined on two grounds: first, whether the defendant could be held liable for the contractors’ actions, and second, whether the defendant was responsible for the damage despite their lack of negligence.  

The Court reached a unanimous decision that the defendant was not liable for the actions of the contractors but had mixed views on the second issue.  

According to Pollock CB and Martin B, the defendant was not liable since a claim of negligence could not be established. Judge Bramwell asserted that the plaintiff had the right to enjoy his land without interference from water from the defendant’s reservoir, and hence, the defendant was guilty of both trespass and nuisance. 

The Court of Exchequer, with Justice Bramwell dissenting, gave judgement in favour of the defendant. 

Court of Exchequer Chamber

Aggrieved by the ruling of the Court of Exchequer of Pleas, the plaintiff appealed to the Exchequer Chamber. The judges overturned the previous decision and unanimously ruled in favour of the plaintiff, granting him damages and establishing the precedent for strict liability for the first time. 

Justice Blackburn, on behalf of all the judges, said that if someone brings a hazardous item onto their property and it escapes, causing damage, that person is held responsible for all resulting harm, irrespective of their negligence, knowledge, or intent. The Court did outline exceptions to this rule, such as acts of God or the plaintiff’s own fault. However, since none of these exceptions were applicable in the present case, the Court found the defendant liable for the damage inflicted on the plaintiff. The defendant appealed. 

House of Lords 

Both sets of attorneys cited numerous cases to support their arguments. Let’s review a selection of them. 

Arguments for the defendant 

The principle from the Exchequer Chamber, holding individuals liable even if they act lawfully and without malice or knowledge of danger, was criticised as too wide, potentially making individuals liable for any harm, regardless of whether it was done involuntarily or unconsciously.  

Emphasis was placed on the defendant’s lack of knowledge regarding the shafts. This point was illustrated with reference to Chadwick vs. Trower, where it was ruled that a person demolishing their own wall was not obliged to notify their neighbour of their actions and was not liable for damage caused to an unknown underground wall of the neighbour’s. 

With reference to Tenant vs. Goldwin, it was argued that once both parties have full  knowledge of the facts, the defendant is obligated to maintain their property in a manner that  prevents harm to their neighbour, which was not the situation in the present case. 

With reference to Partridge vs. Scott, it was argued that employing competent individuals for  lawful tasks does not automatically make the employer liable; liability requires evidence of their own negligence. The person directly performing the work bears sole responsibility. 

The importance of lack of knowledge and, hence, a lack of negligence was stressed as a crucial element in the case. 

It was argued that any fault lies with the plaintiff for failing to inform the defendant about the  shafts. 

Arguments for the plaintiff 

The plaintiff is entitled to protection against water flow that resulted in the destruction of his  works. They would not have objected if the water had originated solely from natural sources,  but it entered due to the defendant’s construction of the reservoir.

The case of Baird vs. Williamson was cited to distinguish between natural water flow and water introduced by actions of neighbouring landowners. 

In Smith vs. Kenrick, it was established that while two miners can conduct their operations in a normal and appropriate manner, one owner is not liable for injuries caused to the other,  without negligence. This case implied that if injury arises from actions outside of ordinary  working, damages may be claimed. In the present case, the construction of a reservoir was not an ordinary job. 

These two cases combined, according to the attorneys, were enough to establish the plaintiff’s right to claim damages. More cases were referred to in order to establish liability on the part of the defendant. 

In Backhouse vs. Bonomi, the act that caused injury was a lawful act, being the ordinary workings of the mine, yet, as it led to damage to the property of others, it was determined to be grounds for compensation. 

In Hodgkinson vs. Ennor, the defendant polluted a stream through activities on their own land, which were taken to be the non-natural way of using the land and was therefore held  responsible for damages. 

Lambert vs. Bessey stated that a person who causes harm to another, even through the  performance of a lawful act, is accountable for their actions. 

It was stated that the principle, qui facit per alium facit per se, applies here, and the principal, i.e., the defendant, is liable for the negligence of his agent, i.e., the contractors. 

Ruling 

The House of Lords, upon hearing the arguments laid down by both the parties, dismissed the defendant’s appeal with cost, affirming the Exchequers judgment. They proceeded to elaborate more comprehensively on the rule of strict liability and introduced certain limitations to it. 

Lord Cairns took into consideration two cases referred to during the proceedings, Smith vs. Kenrick and Baird vs. Williamson. He revised Blackburn J.’s original views, showing a departure from their stringent nature. Lord Cairns introduced the idea of “non-natural” user of land as opposed to “natural” user as a method to adjust the principle in the present case to align more closely with the concept of liability based on fault. 

Lord Cranworth furthermore referred to Lambert vs. Bessey, affirming that when one person in  managing their own affairs causes harm to another, however innocently, it is only fair that they bear the consequences. 

The rule of strict liability

Requirements 

Blackburn J., while delivering the judgement for the Court of Exchequer, along with the House of Lords, established that for the claimant to succeed in this tort, they must demonstrate that: 

  • The defendant brought something onto their land. 
  • The defendant made use of their land that was “non-natural.”
  • The thing brought onto their land was likely to cause harm if it escaped. 
  • The thing did escape and cause damage. 

Exceptions 

While the doctrine of strict liability is stringent, there are recognised defences that can absolve a defendant of liability: 

  • Plaintiff’s own fault: If the escape and resulting harm were caused by the actions or negligence  of the plaintiff, the rule does not apply. For instance, a horse escapes his grounds, trespasses onto the neighbour’s property and consumes poisonous leaves. Owner of horse is not entitled to compensation. 
  • Act of god: Blackburn J. defined the term “Act of God” as “circumstances which no human foresight can provide against and of which human prudence is not bound to recognise the possibility.” Inferring, if the escape resulted from natural events beyond human influence, like an earthquake or a flood, the rule does not apply. 
  • Consent of the plaintiff: Suppose M and N live together. M wants to keep a large collection of snakes in the shared house. N agrees. If the plaintiff has agreed to the presence of a hazardous substance on the property, then the plaintiff has no right of complaint and the rule does not apply.  
  • Act of third party: The defendant is not liable if the escape was caused by someone unrelated or a third party. For instance, trespassers break into a warehouse, trigger the sprinkler system, and damage some goods with water. The warehouse owner is not liable for this damage caused by the trespassers. 
  • Statutory authority: If the act or activity that caused the escape was permitted by law or statute. For instance, if, while installing power lines according to regulatory approvals, a malfunction leads to property damage, the company might not be held liable due to statutory authorisation. 

Difference between strict liability and other torts 

Unlike many torts that hinge on proving negligence or intent, strict liability operates differently. It centres not on the defendant’s behaviour but on the nature of the activity and its possible outcomes. In cases of strict liability, the plaintiff simply needs to show that the harm occurred as a result of the defendant’s actions without requiring to establish negligence or intent. 

Evolution of strict liability in India 

In India, the concept of natural use of land differs from that in other countries. For instance, large volumes of water are deemed essential for activities such as irrigation by farmers. This practice may be in contrast with the definition of “non-natural use of land,” as laid out in Rylands vs. Fletcher. 

Let’s examine a case to gain a better understanding of this concept. 

Madras Railway Co. vs. Zamindar (1974)

Facts of the case

The defendant, a zamindar, owned land adjacent to a railway track owned by a railway company.

The defendant had water tanks on his land, built not just for the benefit of the defendant but also for thousands of his residents. 

Two of these tanks burst, causing water to escape and damaging the plaintiff’s property and  three railway tracks owned by the railway company.  

As a result, the railway company filed a lawsuit against the defendant to seek compensation for the damage suffered. 

Ruling 

The Privy Council considered the tanks essential for sustaining thousands of ryots and deemed it unfair to impose sole liability on the landowner. 

The Council concluded that the Rylands vs. Fletcher ruling was not applicable, discharging the defendant of his liability, citing India’s unique conditions requiring water storage as a natural use of land. 

Also, the rule laid down in a 19th century case was developed during a time of minimal  industrialisation and could be seen as outdated for a rapidly developing economy like India’s.

In response to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and the Oleum Gas Leak, the Indian Judiciary identified a critical need to create a framework that addresses rare occurrences where defendants are held fully accountable for causing widespread damage. Consequently, in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, under the direction of Justice Bhagwati, the concept of absolute liability was introduced.  

M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India AIR (1987)

Background of the case 

M.C. Mehta, a social activist, filed a writ petition for the closure of Shriram Industries, a  company owned by Union Carbide. 

A significant leakage of oleum gas from one of the company units caused one fatality and  injuries to several individuals, with another minor leakage occurring in the next few days. The company was involved in the manufacture of various hazardous chemicals, such as caustic  soda, bleaching powder, sulphuric acid, superphosphate, and hydrochloric acid, and was surrounded by densely populated villages with a population of more than two hundred  thousand within a radius of four miles. 

The central issue in this case was whether the victims of the oleum gas leakage would receive compensation and how the liability should be measured. 

Ruling

The Supreme Court decided against applying the rule of strict liability, concerned it would  absolve industries from accountability for the harm and loss of life they caused. It was of the  opinion that due to numerous exceptions, very little of the original principle remained,  prompting its replacement with the absolute liability rule. 

Under this rule, C.J. Bhagwati stated that enterprises involved in hazardous or inherently  dangerous activities have an absolute and non-delegable duty to prevent harm to those within and around their facilities. In case of any harm occurring due to such activities, they must be fully liable to compensate for such harm, regardless of precautions taken or absence of negligence. 

Regarding compensation, the Court held that the amount of compensation in such cases should be proportionate to the size and financial capacity of the enterprise. This ensures that compensation serves as a deterrent, with larger and more prosperous enterprises being  obligated to pay higher amounts for injury resulting from accidents during hazardous activities. 

What is absolute liability

Absolute liability can simply be defined as strict liability, sans the exceptions. To understand better, let’s explore some of the differences between them as established in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India.

  • Absolute liability applies specifically to enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, unlike strict liability, which applies to all industries. 
  • Under absolute liability, the escape of a hazardous substance to cause harm is not a  requirement. This means that absolute liability applies to injuries both within and outside the premises. 
  • Absolute liability has no exceptions, unlike strict liability, which has quite a few. • While Rylands vs. Fletcher applied only to non-natural use of land, absolute liability applies to both natural and non-natural uses. Even if a hazardous substance is used as part of a natural land use and it escapes, liability remains, regardless of precautions taken.  
  • The compensation, under absolute liability, is awarded correlating with the size and financial strength of the enterprise.

Recent judgement

Radha Sharma vs. State of JK & Ors. (2023) 

  • The petitioner’s 13-year-old son lost his life due to electrocution when he came in contact with live electric wire hanging at 3 to 4 feet from the ground. 
  • The respondents, the electricity department, had failed to take due care and caution in maintaining the electric wires at proper height. 
  • The Court found that the respondent’s claim to have acted with due care and caution was negated by the investigation report of the police.  
  • The Court also put aside the respondent’s claim that the accident was caused due to the victim’s negligence. 
  • The Court applied the rule of absolute liability to hold the respondents liable for compensation. They stated that the claimant was under no obligation to prove negligence on the part of the respondent.  
  • Applying absolute liability to the respondents meant that they were unable to rely on the exceptions typically available under strict liability. 
  • Due to the hazardous and dangerous nature of the enterprise, absolute liability was imposed on the respondent even if reasonable care had been taken. 

Conclusion

The landmark judgement of Rylands vs. Fletcher introduced the rule of strict liability, which suited the circumstances of its time, the 19th century. However, as societal and industrial landscapes evolve, laws must also adapt to meet new challenges. 

While strict liability historically shifted the burden of proof, its exceptions could potentially permit negligence in today’s more industrialised society. Rylands vs. Fletcher shows us how important it is to balance industrial growth with accountability to ensure fairness in the application of justice. 

In our swiftly evolving world of industrialisation and technological advancements, it is imperative that industrialists who employ hazardous substances bear full responsibility for any resulting damages. And what’s better than having a principle that offers no exceptions, i.e., the principle of absolute liability.

Going back to the question left unanswered in the introduction of this article, yes, I can be held liable. Storing fireworks would amount to “bringing something dangerous on land” and also lead to “non-natural use of land.” It igniting and “escaping” my property and causing “damage” to my neighbouring properties would attract the rule of strict liability.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here