RYLAND’S VS FLETCHER AN 1868 CASE OF ENGLAND: CRITCISM AND AMENDMENT

Ryland’s vs. Fletcher is a famous legal decision which started the rule of ‘strict liability’ in law of torts. The principle of this case was given by Blackburn J. – “If a person brings onto his land, and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, he 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”. 

Another important aspect in strict liability is that Fault, intention and Negligence doesn’t play any role in it. What makes Rylands vs Fletcher rule different from the other rules is it’s emphasis on strict liability. As it is stated in that liability is not imposed on the basis of wrongful intent, carelessness or fault but the inherent risk imposed by keeping dangerous things on one’s land.

Although Ryland’s vs. Fletcher is one of the important case laws but there are still a lot of criticism on it:

Non-Natural Use of Land

• It has been difficult to define the concept of ‘non – natural use’ of land in strict liability and has led to its inconsistent application.
• In the case of Rickards vs. Lothian (1913) Lord Moulton clarified the ‘non-natural’ use of land as ‘only special use bringing with it increased danger to others’ which excludes ordinary, domestic activities.
• In the case of Ellison vs. Ministry of Defense (1997) it was stated that accumulating rainwater on an airfield is considered to be a natural use of land, narrowing the scope of Rylands vs Fletcher.

The Term ‘Escape’

• According to the case strict liability only applies when the dangerous thing escapes the property of the defendant. This again limits the scope of strict liability.
• In the case of Read vs. J Lyons & Co Ltd (1947) it was given a thought that this rule of strict liability does not apply in the injuries caused inside a workplace or harms which are fully contained.

Became Largely Academic

• In the case of Transco plc vs. Stockport MBC (2003) it was clarified that Rylands vs Fletcher case has now being confined to specific hazardous activity only.
• As seen in various cases that Rylands vs. Fletcher is now applicable only independently making it more theoretical and less practical in the field of law.

There is a very important academic as well as a judicial debate going on about this rule and that is whether it is an independent rule or a branch of nuisance? In a news article it was shown that the House of Transco treated this rule as a subset of nuisance in a case.

There are other arguments which suggest that if it becomes an offshoot of nuisance it might end up creating risks as both doctrines will be similar in it’s nature.

Now let us talk about the amendments needed in the Rylands vs. Fletcher’s case:

Clarify the Definition of ‘Non-Natural use’ 

• Due to the absence of any particular definition present for the ‘non-natural use’ of land courts find it difficult to reach to any conclusion.
• As this a rule of 1868, there are many modern things which tend to find solution through this case. 
• Therefore, it is needed to clarify in law that modern activities such as chemical etc. are to be considered an objective or a subjective part of this definition.

Overlap of many laws

• There are many areas under law for which different rules or statutes have being made leading to the non-acceptance of Rylands vs. Fletcher’s rule in various cases.
• Due to this there has been an overlap of many laws which has lead to confusion of whether to accept the Rylands vs. Fletcher’s rule or the statutory rules.
• As for the current situation, it is needed that the first preference should be given to statutory remedies and in the absence of these remedies Ryland’s rule should come into place.

Damages to be made broader

• In the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher only basic compensatory damages were given due to which there is no fear in the minds of large enterprises.
• It should be amended in such a way that courts are permitted to award damaged according to the scenario.
• It should be inspired by the case of M.C Mehta and India Council for Enviro-Legal actions cases that provide real compensation according to the situation.

Consideration of Ultra-Hazardous Activities

• In the Rylands rule only basic hazardous activities have been taken care of and not ultra- hazardous activities.
• We all are aware that as the industries are modernizing it is important to make changes in the rule accordingly to make it more broader and to accept all the upcoming changes into it.

Conclusion

Although strict liability is an important part of law of torts but it’s practical value has been reduced due to many criticisms and statutory regulations. It is important for a rule to change with time but equally important for it to make it more inclusive as the generations are growing. To bring it in pace with the modern generation it is required to bring the necessary amendments in it as it will affect the law in different ways. Only by the amendments it is possible that the rule can safeguard public and environmental interests in the changing industrial landscapes.

References

• Rylands v Fletcher​ (1868) case analysis,” Testbook.com, 2025.
• Case analysis : Rylands v. Fletcher (1868),” iPleaders, 2025
• Law of Torts: R.K Bangia