Rylands v Fletcher — common mistakes

In problem questions, methodically apply the four key elements: accumulation, likelihood of mischief, non-natural use, and escape causing foreseeable damage. Use case law to support each point, especially Cambridge Water and Transco. Then, consider any potential defences available to the defendant, such as Act of a Stranger or Statutory Authority. Conclude by advising on the likely outcome.

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.

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.

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'.