Rylands v. Fletcher (1868): Establishing the Principle of Strict Liability

 

Introduction to Rylands v. Fletcher

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a major English tort law case establishing the basis for strict liability. The case started when John Rylands and Thomas Fletcher, who were the defendants in this matter began building a reservoir on their land to supply water for use at their mill. But they failed to fill the reservoir directly over old mine shafts, and in time a great flood resulted when the water broke through these shafts doing extensive damage including flooding out some valuable sub-bituminous coal deposits owned by Plaintiffs on property immediately next door. That led to a degree of litigation which produced another landmark House of Lords decision for our purposes.

 Principle of Strict Liability

The crux of the matter in Rylands V Fletcher was can they be liable for flooding and this without any negligence on their part being proven. It led to a principle called strict liability, the House of Lords said yes. In less formal terms, if he or she puts something on his land which is apt to do mischief and it does so no matter how much care the person took then he would be liable for what broke free and did damage.

Impact and Significance

Tort has been largely influenced by the Rylands v. Fletcher ruling. It created a new legal standard that did not require proof of negligence and thereby widened tort law’s scope with its introduction of strict liability. Today, this principle is applied in different areas including environmental law whereby it holds parties liable for dangerous activities. In short, the case brought forth the responsibility of landowners to henceforth prevent harm from activities occurring on their property.

Legacy and Modern Relevance

This legal idea brought about by Rylands v. Fletcher still guides modern-day practices as it relates to environment amongst other aspects. When we talk about strict liability, therefore, the rule has been cited in cases involving environmental damage, product liability, among others that are fit for such kinds of liabilities. However, this rule has experienced some controversies most especially when it comes to determining what truly amounts to “non-natural” use of land. Nevertheless, the lawsuit remains one of the foundational stones in negligence; which shows that judges play an important role in safeguarding people from dangers that come with risky activities per se.