Strict Liability — The Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher

Some activities are so dangerous that a person must answer for the harm they cause even without any negligence — he keeps the dangerous thing “at his peril.”

The Rule

Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) — the defendants built a reservoir on their land; water escaped through disused mine shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mine. The House of Lords held the defendants liable without proof of fault. Per Blackburn J.:

“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 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.”

The Three Essentials

flowchart TD
    A["Rylands v. Fletcher liability needs…"]:::root
    A --> B["1. A DANGEROUS THING<br/>brought & kept on the land<br/>(water, gas, fire, chemicals)"]:::leaf
    A --> C["2. ESCAPE from the defendant's<br/>land to the plaintiff's"]:::leaf
    A --> D["3. NON-NATURAL USE<br/>of the land (special, increased risk)"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

The Exceptions

Strict liability is not absolute — it yields to five recognised exceptions:

Plaintiff’s own default — the escape was due to the plaintiff himself;
Act of God — an extraordinary natural force (Nichols v. Marsland);
Act of a stranger — a third party over whom the defendant had no control;
Consent of the plaintiff (common benefit); and
Statutory authority.

Compare absolute liability (M.C. Mehta, 1987), the stricter Indian rule with no exceptions and no need to prove escape. See the dedicated page →

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: A factory stores large quantities of water (or gas) in a tank as part of an industrial process. The tank bursts and the water floods a neighbour’s premises, destroying his goods. The factory proves it took all reasonable care. Is it liable?

I — Issue

Whether the factory is liable for the escape of a dangerous thing despite taking all reasonable care.

R — Rule

Under Rylands v. Fletcher, a person who brings a dangerous thing onto his land in the course of a non-natural user is liable for the harm caused by its escape, irrespective of negligence — subject only to the recognised exceptions.

A — Analysis

The decoy is the factory’s proof of reasonable care — under ordinary negligence that would be a complete answer. But Rylands v. Fletcher imposes liability without fault: all three essentials are met — a dangerous thing (a large volume of stored water/gas) was brought and kept on the land in a non-natural, industrial user, and it escaped to the neighbour’s premises causing damage. None of the five exceptions (act of God, stranger, plaintiff’s default, consent, statutory authority) applies. Care is therefore irrelevant.

C — Conclusion

The factory is liable under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, despite having taken all reasonable care, because liability for the escape of a dangerous thing in a non-natural user is strict.

📄 Get all 5 units — Notes + Question Bank (₹199) with 50+ solved problems and 16-mark essay blueprints. Buy the bundle · Free Unit 1 sample · All Law of Torts topics