Court:
House of Lords
United Kingdom
Judges: Lord Cairns, LC and
Lord Cranworth
Lord
Earl Cairns
Lord
Baron Cranworth
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Brief Fact Summary.
 A person who for his own
 Plaintiff sued in
purposes brings on his
lands and collects and
keeps there anything likely
to do mischief if it escapes,
must keep it in 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.
connection with the
flooding of his mine. The
trial court found in his
favor. Defendant sought
review.
Facts
 John Rylands and Thomas Fletcher were neighbors.
 In 1860, John Rylands 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.
 Rather than blocking these shafts up, the contractors left them. On December 11, 1860,
shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands's reservoir burst and flooded
Fletcher's mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937 ($1,501.50 us dollars) worth of
damage.
 Fletcher pumped the water out, but on April 17, 1861 his pump burst, and the mine again
began to flood. At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and the sunken coal
shafts were discovered. Fletcher brought a claim against John Rylands, the owner, and
Jehu Horrocks, the manager of Rylands's reservoir on November 4, 1861.
A reservoir is a natural or artificial
lake, storage pond,
or impoundment from a dam which is used
to store water.
ISSUE FOR THE COURT
 Was the use of Defendant’s land unreasonable and
thus was he to be held liable for damages incurred by
Plaintiff?
DECISION
Held.
 The lower court judgment was affirmed, stating in essence that
the Defendant’s use of the land was unreasonable, engaged in
without proper caution, and resulted in harm to the Plaintiff.
Concurrence.
 The concurrence states more clearly the rule to be applied (see
above), noting also that more than the due care which was owed
to plaintiff, at issue was the factual determination of damage:
“[w]hen one person in managing his own affairs causes, however
innocently, damage to another, it is obviously only just that he
should be the party to suffer.”
BLACKBURN J- Court of Exchequer Chamber
 We think that the true rule of law is, that the person
who for his own purposes brings on his lands and
collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief
if it escapes, must keep it 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. He can
excuse himself by shewing that the escape was owing
to the Plaintiff’s default; or perhaps, that the escape
was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God;
but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary
to inquire what excuse would be sufficient. The general
rule, as above stated, seems on principle just.
Lord Cairns LC- HOUSE OF LORDS
 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.
DISCUSSIONS
 The Rylands court considers the manner in which the
Defendant used the land and concluded such use was
“non-natural” what modern courts have described as
inconsistent land use, i.e., when a party inflicts nonreciprocal risks on another.
 Nineteenth century English law was stricter than current
law, in which trespass liability ordinarily requires the
physical intrusion onto property, and nuisance law requires
“continuing” and “permanent” activity (such as industrial
activity that causes airborne pollution)
RYLANDS TODAY
 The tort of Rylands v Fletcher has been disclaimed in
various jurisdictions, including Scotland, where it was
described as "a heresy that ought to be extirpated", and
Australia, where the High Court chose to destroy the
doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd.
 Within England and Wales, however, Rylands remains valid
law, although the decisions in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v
Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco plc v Stockport
Metropolitan Borough Council make it clear that it is no
longer an independent tort, but instead a sub-tort of
nuisance.