Rylands v Fletcher: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{cite|Rylands|Fletcher|1868|UKHL|1}} is, with {{casenote|Donoghue|Stevenson}} one of the foundational cases in the [[common law]] relating to | {{cn}}{{cite|Rylands|Fletcher|1868|UKHL|1}} is, with {{casenote|Donoghue|Stevenson}} one of the foundational cases in the [[common law]] relating to [[tort]]. | ||
The defendant, Fletcher, owned a mill and employed a contractor to build a reservoir — dramatic chord — ''over a disused mine'' — on their land. The contractors noticed the mines, but continued to work without blocking them up. | The defendant, Fletcher, owned a mill and employed a contractor to build a reservoir — dramatic chord — ''over a disused mine'' — on their land. The contractors noticed the mines, but continued to work without blocking them up. | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
By analogy to the rule relating to [[domestic animal]]s, Blackburn J thought Fletcher should be responsible for the damage as it was a natural consequence of a propensity of penned water that Fletcher knew about (that it was liable to make things wet if it escaped). | By analogy to the rule relating to [[domestic animal]]s, Blackburn J thought Fletcher should be responsible for the damage as it was a natural consequence of a propensity of penned water that Fletcher knew about (that it was liable to make things wet if it escaped). | ||
{{c|Tort}} | |||
Latest revision as of 13:30, 14 August 2024
|
The Jolly Contrarian Law Reports
Our own, snippy, in-house court reporting service.
|
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 is, with Donoghue v Stevenson one of the foundational cases in the common law relating to tort.
The defendant, Fletcher, owned a mill and employed a contractor to build a reservoir — dramatic chord — over a disused mine — on their land. The contractors noticed the mines, but continued to work without blocking them up.
The reservoir burst. It leaked into the disused mine. From there it spread to a working mine owned by the claimant who happened to be — dramatic chord — a neighbour by the name of Rylands.
By analogy to the rule relating to domestic animals, Blackburn J thought Fletcher should be responsible for the damage as it was a natural consequence of a propensity of penned water that Fletcher knew about (that it was liable to make things wet if it escaped).