RYLANDS v FLETCHER RESTRICTED FURTHER

• Published in: Cambridge law journal 2013-03, Vol.72 (1), p.11-14
• Main Author: Tofaris, Stelios
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Appellate courts; CASE AND COMMENT; Case law; Court decisions; Damages; Defendants; Fire damage; Insurance claims; Land ownership; Land use; Liability; Liability (Law); Liability insurance; Negligence; Property damage; Property law; Rule of law; Torts
• ISSN: 0008-1973; 1469-2139
• DOI: 10.1017/S0008197313000214

FEW cases in tort law are better known than Rylands v Fletcher, in which Blackburn J. formulated ((1866) L.R. 1 Exch. 265) and the House of Lords affirmed with minor modifications ((1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330) the rule that a defendant is strictly liable for damage caused by the escape from his land of things which he has accumulated in the course of a "non-natural" use of the land and are likely to do mischief if they escape. Over the years the rule has been emasculated, partly due to the growing influence of negligence ideas but also because of its judicial categorisation as a sub-species of nuisance. In 'Transco Plc v Stockport MBC' [2003] UKHL 61, [2004] 2 A.C. 1, at [39], Lord Hoffmann was little surprised "that counsel could not find a reported case since the Second World War in which anyone had succeeded in a claim under the rule". However, as H.H.J. Peter Coulson Q.C. noted in 'LMS International Limited v Styrene Packaging and Insulation Limited' [2005] EWHC 2065 (TCC), there have in fact been quite a few such cases in that period, most of which concern an escape of fire. These cases, it seems, provide the last bastion of the rule in 'Rylands v Fletcher'. Hence when the application of the rule to damage by fire came under scrutiny in 'Stannard (t/a Wyvern Tyres) v Gore' [2012] EWCA Civ 1248, it was bound to be of importance both for the rule and fire claims.