Worked example 1
A factory stores 50,000 litres of industrial solvent in tanks on its site. A pipe fractures; solvent seeps through soil and contaminates a neighbour's water supply. The factory took reasonable maintenance care. Advise the neighbour on Rylands v Fletcher liability. [15 marks]
Show solution outline
Rylands elements:
- Bring on land for own purposes: Factory stored solvent for manufacturing — satisfied.
- Likely to do mischief if escapes: Industrial solvent contaminating water — satisfied.
- Non-natural use: Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather — storage of solvents in commercial quantities in industrial area analysed. Large-scale industrial chemical storage = non-natural use (special risk beyond ordinary land use).
- Escape: Solvent seeped off factory land into neighbour's supply — satisfied (Transco v Stockport — gas leak from pipe under highway = escape).
- Damage: Contamination of water supply — property damage (Cambridge Water — pollution damage recoverable if foreseeable type).
Foreseeability (Cambridge Water): Type of harm (water contamination) must be reasonably foreseeable — likely satisfied for solvent seepage.
Negligence irrelevant: Reasonable maintenance does not defeat Rylands — strict liability once elements met.
Defences: Neighbour did not consent; no act of stranger unless pipe failure was third-party vandalism; act of God unlikely.
Conclusion: Neighbour has strong Rylands claim for remediation costs and property damage. Also consider private nuisance and negligence as alternatives.