Rylands v Fletcher: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{casenote|Rylands|Fletcher}} is, with {{casenote|Donoghue|Stevenson}} one of the foundational cases in the [[common law]] relating to {{tag|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. | ||
Revision as of 17:44, 29 October 2018
Rylands v Fletcher 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).