Rylands v Fletcher: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
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}}.  
{{cite|Rylands|Fletcher|1868|UKHL|1}} 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 17:59, 29 October 2018

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).