Facts[ edit ] InRylands paid contractors to build a reservoir on his land, intending that it should supply the Ainsworth Mill with water. Rylands played no active role in the construction, instead contracting out to a competent engineer. At this point a mines inspector was brought in, and the sunken coal shafts were discovered. Rylands, however, had no way of knowing about the mine shafts and so was not.
House of Lords Rule: A person who for his own purposes brings on his lands 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 defendants operated the Ainsworth Mill nearby. While excavating for the bed of the mill pond, the independent contractors came across five old shafts descending vertically into the ground. The shafts were filled with soil. Unbeknownst to the contractors, these shafts were part of old coal workings under the site of the future reservoir.
The contractors proceeded to build the pond on top of the shafts. As the pond began to fill, the weight of the water caused the soil in one of the shafts to give way.
On the morning of December 11, water burst into the old abandoned workings and traveled underground beneath adjacent property until it entered into and flooded the Red House P Argument: This is not a simple negligence case, this is a case of the Defendant performing abnormally dangerous acts on his property.
There had to be some knowledge that the property was once used as a coal working. Placing large quantities of water on a property like this is almost guaranteed to cause damage elsewhere. Defendant did everything it could have reasonably expected to do. Under traditional negligence, theories can be no liability.
The harm was completely unforeseeable, and the cost of preventing that harm would be astronomical Rule:Rylands v Fletcher  UKHL 1 was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Rylands employed contractors to build a .
BACKGROUND Rylands Vs Fletcher is one of the most famous and a landmark case in tort.
It was an English case in year and was progenitor of the doctrine of Strict Liability for abnormally dangerous conditions and activities. View this case and other resources at: Citation. 24 Nev. , 52 P. , Nev. Brief Fact Summary.
Rylands v. Fletcher Tort Liability For Defective Products Settlement, Apportionment, And Damages Worker's Compensation Create cloud based private course Study Groups.
CASE BRIEFS. The case of Transco v Stockport is very important as it represents the most recent and arguably, only attempt, to analyse the rule (“the Rule”) in Rylands v Fletcher () LR 1 Exch and consider its relevance to the modern world.
Start studying Case Analysis - Rylands v Fletcher & Donohue v Stevenson. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Case Name: Rylands v Fletcher  UKHL 1 Court: House of Lords Case History: Exchequer of Pleas Court of Exchequer Chamber Facts: The defendant owned a mill and constructed a reservoir on their land.
The reservoir was placed over a disused mine.