9084 · 4.2.3
Rylands v Fletcher — FAQ
Frequently asked questions for 9084 Rylands v Fletcher. Direct answers first, then deeper explanation — then practise with marking.
Is Rylands v Fletcher a 'strict liability' tort? Does this mean the defendant is always liable?
Yes, it is a strict liability tort, meaning the claimant does not need to prove fault or negligence regarding the escape. However, liability is not absolute. The claimant must still prove all four elements of the tort, and the defendant can raise several defences (like Act of God). Furthermore, the Cambridge Water case introduced the requirement that the type of damage must be foreseeable, adding a fault-based element concerning remoteness.
Can a claimant sue under Rylands v Fletcher for personal injury?
The position is now clear that personal injury claims are not recoverable. The House of Lords in Transco plc v Stockport MBC stated that the tort should be confined to damage to land or property, and personal injury claims must be brought in negligence. This followed an earlier suggestion in Read v J Lyons & Co Ltd.
What is the difference between 'non-natural use' and something being 'unnatural'?
This is a key legal distinction. 'Non-natural use' is a legal term, not a literal one. It does not mean the activity is bizarre or against nature. As defined in Rickards v Lothian and refined in Transco, it means a use that is 'extraordinary and unusual' for the time and place, bringing with it an increased risk to others. For example, domestic water pipes are a natural use, but storing thousands of litres of industrial chemicals in a residential area would likely be a 'non-natural use'.