Rylands v. Fletcher vs. Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.
A side-by-side comparison of two landmark torts cases
Rylands v. Fletcher
L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868) (1868)
Holding
The House of Lords held that a person who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, 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. The defendant was strictly liable for the flood damage to the plaintiff's mines.
Doctrine Established
Strict Liability for Non-Natural/Abnormally Dangerous Use of Land
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.
109 Minn. 456, 124 N.W. 221 (1910) (1910)
Holding
The court held that while the defendant was privileged to remain moored to the dock during the storm (private necessity), the defendant was still liable for the damage caused to the dock. The privilege of necessity allows the interference with another's property but does not excuse the obligation to pay for the resulting harm. The defendant deliberately chose to preserve his ship at the expense of the plaintiff's dock.
Doctrine Established
Private Necessity (Incomplete Privilege)
Comparison Analysis
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) and Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (1910) both involve liability imposed without fault for damage to another's property, but they rest on different theoretical foundations. Rylands established the principle that one who brings onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for damage caused by its escape, regardless of the landowner's care or fault. This created the doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities. Vincent held that a ship owner who kept his vessel moored to a dock during a storm to save the ship from destruction was privileged to do so (necessity) but was still liable for the resulting damage to the dock.
Rylands rests on a risk-allocation theory: when someone voluntarily engages in an abnormally dangerous activity for their own benefit, they should bear the costs of any harm that results, even if they exercised all reasonable care. This is the essence of strict liability -- the activity is so inherently risky that the actor is treated as an insurer against the harms it produces. Vincent rests on a different theory: the ship owner acted reasonably and was privileged by necessity to use the dock, but the privilege does not include the right to impose costs on others without compensation. The dock owner must tolerate the ship's presence but is entitled to be made whole for the damage.
Both cases reflect the principle that someone who benefits from an activity or a choice should internalize the costs that activity imposes on others. Rylands frames this as strict liability for dangerous activities; Vincent frames it as conditional privilege with a duty to compensate. Both reject the idea that the absence of fault necessarily means the absence of liability. In economic terms, both impose liability on the cheaper cost avoider or the party best positioned to insure against the loss.
Similarities
- Both impose liability for property damage without requiring proof that the defendant acted negligently or intended harm
- Both reflect the principle that one who benefits from an activity should bear the costs that activity imposes on innocent third parties
- Both involve damage to another's property caused by a deliberate choice (maintaining a reservoir; keeping a ship moored) rather than an accidental event
- Both are foundational cases in the study of strict liability and its alternatives to the fault-based negligence system
Differences
- Rylands imposes strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities, while Vincent imposes compensated privilege (liability despite the privilege of necessity)
- In Rylands, the defendant's activity was ongoing and for commercial benefit, while in Vincent, the defendant was responding to an emergency (a severe storm)
- Rylands addresses the question of when strict liability applies regardless of care, while Vincent addresses the question of when a privilege to act does not include a privilege to avoid paying for the consequences
- Rylands has been narrowly applied in American law (the Restatement limits it to 'abnormally dangerous activities'), while Vincent's principle of compensated necessity has been broadly accepted
- The defendant in Rylands arguably could have avoided the harm by not building the reservoir, while the defendant in Vincent had no practical alternative during the storm
Why This Comparison Matters
Exam questions testing strict liability and necessity often require students to distinguish between these two frameworks. When an activity causes harm despite the actor's reasonable care, determine whether Rylands strict liability applies (was the activity abnormally dangerous?) or whether Vincent's compensated privilege framework applies (was the actor responding to an emergency?). A common exam trick is a scenario combining elements of both -- an abnormally dangerous activity conducted out of necessity -- requiring students to integrate both doctrines.
More Torts Comparisons
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. vs. United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad (1928) and United States v. Carroll Towing (1947) are the two most important negligence cases in American tort law, each addressing a different element of the negligence analysis. Palsgraf, through the famous Cardozo-Andrews debate, addresses the duty and proximate cause elements, holding that a defendant owes a duty of care only to foreseeable plaintiffs -- those within the zone of danger created by the defendant's conduct. Carroll Towing, through Judge Learned Hand's algebraic formula (B < PL), addresses the breach element, providing a framework for determining whether a defendant's conduct fell below the standard of reasonable care by comparing the burden of precaution (B) against the probability of harm (P) multiplied by the gravity of the resulting injury (L).
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. vs. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916) and Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) represent the two great revolutions in products liability law. MacPherson, authored by Judge Cardozo, eliminated the privity requirement in negligence, holding that a manufacturer owes a duty of care not just to the immediate buyer but to all foreseeable users of the product. Greenman, authored by Justice Traynor, went further by establishing strict products liability, holding that a manufacturer is strictly liable when a defective product causes injury, regardless of negligence or contractual privity.
Vosburg v. Putney vs. Garratt v. Dailey
Vosburg v. Putney (1891) and Garratt v. Dailey (1955) are both foundational intentional tort cases that explore the minimal intent required for battery, but they present the issue in different factual contexts that illuminate different aspects of the intent doctrine. Vosburg held that a schoolboy who kicked a classmate's leg during class committed a battery even though he did not intend to cause serious injury, because the kick was unlawful (it occurred during class, not during recess) and the defendant intended the physical contact. Garratt held that a five-year-old boy who pulled a chair out from under an elderly woman could be liable for battery if he knew with 'substantial certainty' that she would attempt to sit down where the chair had been.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California vs. Dillon v. Legg
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976) and Dillon v. Legg (1968) are both California Supreme Court cases that expanded the scope of tort duty beyond traditional limits, but in different directions. Tarasoff established the duty of mental health professionals to warn or protect identifiable third parties when a patient makes a credible threat of violence, overriding the traditional rule that there is no duty to control the conduct of another. Dillon established that a bystander who witnesses a close relative being negligently injured may recover for the emotional distress of witnessing the event, even though the bystander was not physically endangered.