Facts:
The defendant, Rylands, had a reservoir constructed on his land by independent contractors. When the construction of the reservoir was in process, the contractors came across some old coal shafts and passages that were beneath the defendant’s land. These passages were connected to a mine on another person’s land, i.e. the plaintiff, Thomas Fletcher, but the contractors discovered that they were filled with loose soil and earth. The contractors did not pay attention to them and continued to build the reservoir over the passages. When the reservoir was complete, it was filled with water.
Shortly after the water was filled in the reservoir, the water caused the reservoir to burst and entered the passages beneath the reservoir. Consequently, the water reached the plaintiff’s (Fletcher) land and burst through the mine on the land, thus flooding them. Fletcher tried pumping the water out, but his pump also burst, causing the mine to flood again. Ultimately, a mines inspector was called, and the coal shafts beneath the defendant’s land were discovered. Fletcher brought an action against Rylands as well as the landowner, Jehu Horrocks, on 4th November 1861.
Issues:
Judgement by Exchequer of Pleas:
Mellor, J, and a special jury at the Liverpool Assizes initially heard the case, in September 1862, which led to an arbitrator being appointed by the Exchequer of Pleas in December 1864. The arbitrator stated that it was the contractors who were liable for negligence, because they were aware of the existence of the shafts, whereas Rylands had no knowledge of them, thus freeing him of liability.
The case was then heard by the Exchequer of Pleas in May 1865, in which it was held that the defendants were not liable. However, there was a dissenting opinion from Bramwell B, who observed that the plaintiff had a right to the enjoyment of his land without any interference, and the water was an interference from the defendants, thus making him liable for the damages. It was the defendants who had caused the water to flow on the land of the plaintiff and had their act not been so, there would have been no discontinuation in the enjoyment of the land by the plaintiff.
Appeal to the Court of Exchequer Chamber:
Thomas Fletcher then appealed to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, from which the final decision arrived. The decision of the Exchequer of Pleas was overturned, and the case was ruled in Fletcher’s favour. As stated by Blackburn J, who spoke on behalf of all judges, the reality of the rule of law is that a person, who brings or collects on his land anything that is likely to cause mischief in case it escapes, then he must do so at his own peril. Such a person brings that thing on his land for his own purposes, and he, prima facie, is responsible for the consequences that may arrive as a result of the escape of such a thing. There can be exceptions if the escape is due to the plaintiff, or an act of God. But, since there is nothing of this sort that exists here, no excuse from the defendant would be sufficient.
The general principle that comes to be just here is that a person who suffers loss because of the actions of his neighbour, whether it be the eating of his corn by the neighbour’s cattle, or the flooding of his mine by the water from the neighbour’s reservoir, or his residence made unhealthy by the fumes and vapours from the neighbouring land, is to be compensated as there is no fault of his own. And the such neighbour is obliged to make good the damage caused to the person whose property is destroyed, in case he is unable to keep the mischief from being caused, even though the thing is harmless if contained in his own property.
Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability:
-
If the escape was due to the plaintiff’s own actions and the defendant had no role to play in it.
-
If the escape of the thing was due to an act of God.
-
If the escape was due to an irrational or supernatural force, which is similar to an act of God but it takes into account all such events which could not have been apprehended beforehand, or events happening in rare circumstances.
-
If the escape was due to an act of a stranger to the circumstances upon whom the defendant had no control and nor the defendant could have anticipated or controlled the situation created by the stranger
Criticism:
When the judgement of the Rylands v Fletcher case came out, it faced criticism within England and Wales, along with facing opposition outside.
"Rylands v. Fletcher" was criticized by some for several reasons:
-
Unclear Definition of "Unnatural Use": The case established the principle that an individual who makes an "unnatural use" of their land may be strictly liable for harm caused by that use. However, the definition of "unnatural use" was not well-defined, and the courts have struggled to apply it in practice. As a result, the principle has been criticized as being too vague and uncertain.
-
Overly Broad Application: Some critics argue that the principle established in Rylands v. Fletcher has been applied too broadly, leading to strict liability being imposed in cases where it was not intended. This has led to confusion and uncertainty in the law, and has been seen as an unjust outcome in some cases.
-
Conflict with Fault-Based Liability: The principle of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher conflicts with the traditional principle of fault-based liability in tort law. This has led to criticism that the principle is unfair, as it imposes liability without fault, and has the potential to discourage individuals from engaging in lawful activities for fear of being held liable for harm caused by those activities.
-
Lack of Deterrent Effect: Some argue that strict liability does not have the deterrent effect that is often associated with fault-based liability. This is because strict liability imposes liability regardless of fault, and therefore, does not provide a disincentive for individuals to engage in activities that pose a risk of harm.
Despite these criticisms, the principle of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher remains an important part of the law of torts, and continues to be applied in a wide range of cases. However, the criticisms of the case highlight the importance of clarifying the definition of "unnatural use" and ensuring that the principle of strict liability is applied in a way that is consistent with the underlying principles of tort law.
The American interpretation mainly revolved around the judgement being economically harmful. In Canada, the case of Ernst v. EnCana Corporation was inspired by the rule of Rylands v Fletcher. In Scotland, the principle was applied initially, in the case of Mackintosh v. Mackintosh but it came to an end in RHM Bakeries v. Strathclyde Regional Council. It was disregarded as being a heresy that had to be erased. In India, the rule became ineffective with the onset of time, and the Supreme Court, in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, evolved the principle of absolute liability, leaving no loopholes to seek big enterprises that caused extensive damage and escape from liability.
MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987) and subsequent related cases have helped to resolve some of the criticisms associated with the principle of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher.
-
Clarification of "Unnatural Use": In MC Mehta v Union of India, the Supreme Court of India interpreted the principle of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher to include not only "unnatural use" of land, but also "ultrahazardous" activities that pose a significant risk of harm to others. This clarification of the definition of "unnatural use" has provided greater certainty and clarity in the application of the principle of strict liability.
-
Expansion of Strict Liability: In MC Mehta v Union of India, the Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of strict liability to include not just harm caused by activities on land, but also harm caused by activities in the air and water. This expansion of strict liability has helped to address concerns that the principle established in Rylands v. Fletcher was overly narrow and outdated.
-
Environmental Protection: MC Mehta v Union of India have been significant in the context of environmental protection, as the cases have been used to impose strict liability on polluters and other industries that pose a significant risk of harm to the environment. This has been seen as a positive development, as it has helped to ensure that individuals and businesses are held accountable for the harm that they cause to the environment.
MC Mehta vs Union of India, along with related cases, have helped to resolve some of the criticisms associated with the principle of strict liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher. The cases have provided greater clarity and certainty in the definition of "unnatural use" and have expanded the scope of strict liability to include not just harm caused by activities on land, but also harm caused by activities in the air and water. Additionally, the cases have helped to promote environmental protection by imposing strict liability on those who cause harm to the environment.
