|
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 House of Lords
The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on
their land. The reservoir was placed over a disused mine. Water from the
reservoir filtered through to the disused mine shafts and then spread to a working
mine owned by the claimant causing extensive damage.
Held:
The defendants were strictly liable for the damage caused by
a non- natural use of land.
Lord Cranworth:
“If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything
which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at
his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however
careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent
the damage.”
Lord Cairns LC:
“The Defendants, treating them as the owners or occupiers of
the close on which the reservoir was constructed, might lawfully have used that
close for any purpose for which it might in the ordinary course of the
enjoyment of land be used; and if, in what I may term the natural user of that
land, there had been any accumulation of water, either on the surface or
underground, and if, by the operation of the laws of nature, that accumulation
of water had passed off into the close occupied by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff
could not have complained that that result had taken place. If he had desired
to guard himself against it, it would have lain upon him to have done so, by
leaving, or by interposing, some barrier between his close and the close of the
Defendants in order to have prevented that operation of the laws of nature…On
the other hand if the Defendants, not stopping at the natural use of their
close, had desired to use it for any purpose which I may term a non-natural
use, for the purpose of introducing into the close that which in its natural
condition was not in or upon it, for the purpose of introducing water either
above or below ground in quantities and in a manner not the result of any work
or operation on or under the land, - and if in consequence of their doing so,
or in consequence of any imperfection in the mode of their doing so, the water
came to escape and to pass off into the close of the Plaintiff, then it appears
to me that that which the Defendants were doing they were doing at their own
peril; and, if in the course of their doing it, the evil arose to which I have
referred, the evil, namely, of the escape of the water and its passing away to
the close of the Plaintiff and injuring the Plaintiff, then for the consequence
of that, in my opinion, the Defendants would be liable.”
|
