Authored By: Khadija Munir
De Montfort University
- Case title and Citation:
John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
- Court Name and Bench:
House of Lords (UK)
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Cairns) and Lord Cranworth
- Date of Judgment:
17th July 1868
- Parties Involved:
Thomas Fletcher
John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks
- Facts of the Case:
The facts of this case are, Thomas Fletcher, the plaintiff, had leases to work in coal mines located underneath land that belonged to various owners, including Lord Wilton, Mr. Whitehead and Mr Hilton. John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks, the defendants, owned a mill and a small reservoir that was south from these lands, they wanted to improve the water supply to their mill. The new reservoir would pass in the south direction across part of the land owned by Lord Wilton and the land of Mr. Hilton, to reach the defendants mill. To perform the work, they employed a competent and independent contractor and engineer. And there had been no charge of negligence made against the defendants personally.
During the construction, the contractor and engineer found a five-year-old vertical mine shaft, that led to abandoned horizontal mine passages underneath the property. The mine shafts and passages were filled with marl and rubbish, therefore appearing neglected. No one in the community, including Rylands and Horrocks, knew the complete scope of the underground passages, as no investigations or examinations had been conducted. The case clearly states that “no care was taken by the engineer or the contractor to block up these shafts,” as the origin of the shafts and passages were unknown, illustrating to even though they discovered the shafts during the mining, they did not take the correct method of proceeding with their construction work, because they should have boarded up the passages.
Construction for the reservoir ended in the beginning of December 1860 but problems began to occur on the morning of the 11th of that month, when the reservoir had been only partially filled, as the pressure of the water collected caused one of the vertical shafts to give way. This led to water bursting downwards between the mine shafts and into the neglected horizontal workings, making its way through the underground passages. Which consequent to the water of the reservoir flowed into old-passages and coal-workings underneath, until it reached and flooded Fletcher’s active mining grounds. The flooding has disrupted and damaged the mines’ capability of functioning, for the workings to stop, which caused significant loss for Fletcher.
- Issues Raised
There were four legal issues that came about from this case, those were:
- Are the defendants liable for the escape of water despite having no personal negligence?
- Whether storing a large quantity of water in a reservoir constituted as a “non-natural” use of land that triggered strict liability?
- Whether employing competent and independent contractors could absolve the defendants of liability?
- Whether the presence of unknown and concealed mine shafts could serve as a defence?
Arguments of the Parties
Arguments presented by Fletcher
Fletcher’s legal team outlined:
- That the defendants had insincerely introduced a reckless quantity of water onto their land
- It was not a natural use of land but unusual and hazardous
- When they introduced the water in this way, they had a duty to ensure that it did not cause harm
- Fletcher had been using his mine in an ordinary fashion and reasonable manner
- They used cases such as Baird v Williamson (1863) 143 E.R. 831 and Tenant v Goldwin (1704) 92 E.R. 222, as they established liability when the landowners bring a substance onto their land that later causes harm
Fletcher’s dispute emphasised fairness and justice, for those that suffer from the individual’s or groups that create the risks, should be held accountable for the escape and damage of the substance, and suffer the consequences.
Arguments presented by Rylands and Horrocks
After the judgment had been announced, the defendants argued that they were not negligent, personally or otherwise. They had expressed that they used their land in a lawful and appropriate manner, for their industrial needs. They then argued that:
- They did not know the workings of the old mines; therefore, they could not prevent the water from escaping
- Their actions had been free of malice and completely lawful
- Negligence that occurred came from the contractors, they were competent and independent
- Damage without legal injury (damnum absque injuria1) must not make them responsible
- They depended on cases Acton v Blundell (1843) 152 E.R. 1223, Chasemore v Richards (1859) 11 E.R. 140 and Smith v Kenrick (1849) 137 E.R. 205, which managed and established rules with natural water and subterranean conditions
The basis of their claims had been that liability should require negligence or a knowledge of potential danger, and they did not have either.
Judgment
Mr. Justice Blackburn stated his opinion, in the Court of the Exchequer Chamber, “the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in peril,” demonstrating that the person that keeps a non-natural substance that causes mischief is responsible. The House of Lords disregarded the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, meaning that Fletcher was entitled to damages. Lord Cranworth announced he concurs “in thinking that the rule of law was correctly stated by Mr. Justice Blackburn,”. The principle established by Mr. Justice Blackburn had been made known to be consistent with previous authorities involving dangerous animals, water, filth or industrial fumes. It had also been stated that the only reasonable and valid defences would be either the plaintiff’s own fault or an Act of God, neither of which are applied in Rylands v Fletcher.
It also established the rule that the defendants were strictly liable for the escape of water from their reservoir, despite having employed contractors and having no personal negligence. But when considering whether the defendant is liable to a plaintiff for damage, the question that must be answered isn’t “whether the defendant has acted with due care and causation, but whether his acts have occasioned the damage,”. Both Lord Cranworth and Lord Cairns had decided that storing significant quantities of water constitutes a non-natural use of land; therefore, the defendants acted at their own risk. Lord Cranworth agreed with the reasoning of Lord Cairns and affirmed that English laws had been put in place to hold a person responsible when their lawful actions, even ones that are free of malice, cause damage to another. He extended to cases such as Smith v Kenrick and Baird v Williamson to demonstrate that the natural flow of water does not cause liability, but unnatural pumping or storing does. In the case of Rylands v Fletcher, the defendants were accountable because the water had been accumulated in a non-natural manner.
The flooding of the plaintiff’s mine had been a foreseeable event and consequence of the reckless collection of water, even if the exact mechanism had been unknown and the plaintiff had the right to work his coal through the lands of Mr. Whitehead and up to the old workings. This reasoning formed the basis of the cases, known as the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.
Ratio Decidendi
The legal reasoning had been developed from establishing a general principle that a person who introduces a substance that is likely to cause harm or damage if it escapes onto their land must keep it confined at their own risk. It also created Rylands v Fletcher to become a key landmark case in the UK legal system. Lord Cairns had simply and clearly clarified the differentiation between natural uses of land and non-natural uses of land. The natural use of land includes ordinary activities, such as agriculture or naturally gathering water. Whereas the defendants’ actions of constructing a reservoir were an unusual use that increased the potential risk for harm, so if the accumulated water escaped, the defendants must be held accountable.
Conclusion
Throughout the case of Rylands v Fletcher, the House of Lords established what became the principle of strict liability in English tort law. The decision had been made clear that if someone brings something dangerous or harmful onto their land and it escapes, they can be held liable even if they are not personally negligent. The case showcases that the use of land through construction and storing enormous quantities of water in a reservoir creates an unusual risk, therefore can be considered as non-natural use. The defendant must bear the consequences when things went wrong. The judgment prompted a shift in the law regarding protecting innocent neighbours from risks created by others. It affirmed that anybody that introduces a substance that is capable of causing danger or harm, onto their property, must ensure that the substance does not escape and cause damage. Both Lord Cranworth and Lord Cairns discussed the principle that highlighted the defendants’ waterhole was considered a non-natural use of land and that the escape of collected water triggered strict liability.
The case has since become a substantial landmark decision, as it helped balance the landowners’ freedom to use their land with an obligation towards those around them. It created a foundation for important groundwork for the current society’s ideas about environmental and industrial liability.
Reference(S):
Cases:
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330
Baird v Williamson (1863) 143 E.R. 831
Tenant v Goldwin (1704) 92 E.R. 222
Acton v Blundell (1843) 152 E.R. 1223
Chasemore v Richards (1859) 11 E.R. 140
Smith v Kenrick (1849) 137 E.R. 205
Websites:
