TORT PRESENTATION

RYLANDS -V-

FLETCHER

Submitted by- Amit Kumar Sinha B.A.LLB

Roll no. – 5

BACKGROUND Rylands Vs Fletcher is one of the most famous

and a landmark case in tort. It was an English case in year 1868 and was progenitor of the doctrine of Strict Liability for abnormally dangerous conditions and activities. This case paved the way for judgement of many more cases on nuisance and liability in case of negligence. Even if one is not on fault, he can be held liable for negligence. Strict liability states a person responsible for the damage or loss done occurred to other by his or her activity without the concern of elements such as negligence, mens rea and any kind of remote liability.

FACTS OF THE CASES Both Rylands and Fletcher were neighbours. Rylands owned a mill for whose energy

requirement he constructed a water reservoir on his land.

He gave this work to independent contractor and engineers.

Due to the negligence of the private contractor, the shafts that led the way to Fletcher’s mine were broken which led the water into the mine, causing heavy loss to him.

Fletcher sued Rylands.

DIAGRAMMATICAL RERPESENTATION

ISSUES RAISED NUISANCE

ANIMAL CATTLE TREAPASS – DAMAGE TO NEIGHBOUR’S PROPERTY- INJURY TO HUMAN –LIABILITY OF THE OWNER

EXCHEQUER There was a question that whether the plaintiff

was entitled to get the compensation or not.

Mr. Baron gave the judgment in favour of the defendants and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get the compensation.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

The Court of Exchequer Chamber held Rylands liable for the damage done to Fletcher.

It was held that the defendants owed a duty of care towards the risk which he took by doing unnatural use of his land and bringing any object to his land which was not harmful that time but would be harmful if it escapes.

Even if defendant was unaware of the fact that there were shafts which could lead water into plaintiff’s mine, he is liable.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS

The appellant took the defence that the construction work was being carried by an agency and was inspected by an engineer.

It was said that appellants were not at all part of the work. They also were not subjected to know about the security regarding the construction.

It was held that it does not matters what care did the appellant took but he was responsible for the damage as he brought to his premises such article which could be dangerous if escapes.

Appeal was dismissed and compensation was given to Fletcher.

RATIO DECIDENDI (REASON OF DECIDING)

Facts I. Rylands constructed a reservoir on his land.

II. The work of construction was done by independent contractor and he was negligent in his work.

III. Water escaped and injured Fletcher.

Conclusion- Rylands was held liable to Fletcher.

Material facts seen by the CourtIV. Rylands constructed a reservoir on his land.

V. Water escaped and injured Fletcher.

Conclusion- Rylands was held liable to Fletcher.

EFFECTS OF THE CASE

This case laid the principle of absolute liability. It stated that an occupier of land who brings

onto it anything likely to do damage if it escapes, and keeps that thing on the land, will be liable for any damage caused by an escape.

This rule laid the theory of unnatural use of land and creation of risk.

The rule hence created was further used in few cases-

a. Cambridge Water Co. Ltd v. Eastern Counties Leather Plc.

b. Transco plc v. Stockport MBC

EFFECTS OF THE CASE IN INDIA A more stringent rule of strict liability than the

rule in Rylands v. Fletcher was laid by the Supreme Court in the recent case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of INDIA.

The court held that the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher which evolved in 19th century did not fully meet the needs of modern industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology were hazardous or inherently dangerous industries were necessary to be carried out on as a part of the development programme and that it was necessary to lay down a new rule not yet recognised by the English law, to adequately deal with the problems arising in a highly industrialised economy.

CONCLUSION

Rylands vs. Fletcher paved the way for a new way of deciding cases related to owner’s liability. There was a requirement to have a law that could increase the duty of the owner to take care. The world is progressing very fast and disputes regarding duty of care are increasing rapidly, so there was a need to put up a law which could sort these problems. This was done by this case. Rule of strict liability was not followed in India but it was modified to Absolute liability which is being used now-a-days.

BIBLIOGRAPHYI. The all England law reports 1861 to 1873.II. Jurisprudence – Dr. S.R.Myneni.