Rylands v fletcher case analysis

Named the 9 fastest growing education company in the United States. Thank you for your support! Rylands owned a mill, and built a reservoir on his land for the purpose of supplying water to that mill. Rylands employed engineers and contractors to build the reservoir.

Rylands v fletcher case analysis

Facts[ edit ] InRylands paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land, intending that it should supply the Ainsworth Mill with water. Rylands played no active role in the construction, instead contracting out to a competent engineer.

While building it, the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts and passages under the land filled loosely with soil and debris, which joined up with Thomas Fletcher's adjoining mine.

At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and the sunken coal shafts were discovered. Rylands, however, had no Rylands v fletcher case analysis of knowing about the mine shafts and so was not. Exchequer of Pleas[ edit ] The case then went to the Exchequer of Pleas, where it was heard between 3 and 5 May Pollock CB and Martin B held that the defendants were not liable, as since a negligence claim could not be brought there was no valid case.

Bramwell Bdissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. He stated that "the general law, wholly independent of contract" should be that the defendants were liable, "on the plain ground that the defendants have caused water to flow into the [claimant]'s mines, which but for their act would not have gone there The prior decision was overturned in his favour.

Blackburn J spoke on behalf of all the judges and said that: We think that the true rule of law is, that 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 Rylands v fletcher case analysis at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

Rylands v fletcher case analysis

The general rule, as above stated, seems on principle just. The person whose grass or corn is eaten down by the escaping cattle of his neighbour, or whose mine is flooded by the water from his neighbour's reservoir, or whose cellar is invaded by the filth of his neighbour's privy, or whose habitation is made unhealthy by the fumes and noisome vapours of his neighbour's alkali works, is damnified without any fault of his own; and it seems but reasonable and just that the neighbour who has brought something on his own property which was not naturally thereharmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour's, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property.

But for his act in bringing it there no mischief could have accrued, and it seems but just that he should at his peril keep it there, so that no mischief may accrue, or answer for the natural and anticipated consequence.

And upon authority this we think is established to be the law, whether the things so brought be beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches.

Rylands v. Fletcher | Casebriefs

House of Lords[ edit ] The House of Lords dismissed the appeal and agreed with the determination for Fletcher. The case was then heard by the House of Lords on 6 and 7 Julywith a judgment delivered on 17 July.

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.

As the case of Smith v. Kenrick is an illustration of the first principle to which I have referred, so also the second principle to which I have referred is well illustrated by another case in the same Court, the case of Baird v Williamson[24] which was also cited in the argument at the Bar.

This foundation stone is a recurring theme in the common law throughout the ages, to wit: Trespass was considered a remedy for all tortious wrongs, and sometimes used as a synonym for torts generally. The case had almost identical facts to Rylands, but strict liability was never even considered.In Rylands v Fletcher () LR 3 HL , the defendants employed independent contractors to construct a reservoir on their land.

The contractors found disused mines when digging but failed to . Essay on Rylands v Fletcher Case Analysis Words | 5 Pages claim for damages from Boutique Bugs (Defendant) for the amount of $1,, based on the elements of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

Jul 25,  · Analysis: The Rylands court considers the manner in which the Defendant used the land and concluded such use was “non-natural” (the building of a pond) what modern courts have described as inconsistent land use, i.e., when a party inflicts non-reciprocal risks on another.

A summary and case brief of Rylands v. Fletcher, including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents.

Rylands v. Rylands v Fletcher [] UKHL 1 was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Rylands employed contractors to build a . View this case and other resources at: Citation. 24 Nev. , 52 P. , Nev. Brief Fact Summary. Rylands v. Fletcher Tort Liability For Defective Products Settlement, Apportionment, And Damages Worker's Compensation Create cloud based private course Study Groups.

Rylands v fletcher case analysis


Rylands v Fletcher - Wikipedia