Rylands v. Fletcher

The defendant, Fletcher, hired independent contractors to build a reservoir on his land to supply water for his mill. During construction, the contractors discovered old, abandoned mine shafts beneath the site but failed to seal them properly. When the reservoir was filled, water burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff Rylands's adjoining coal mines, causing significant damage.

Justice Blackburn, writing for the Exchequer Chamber in the opinion affirmed by the House of Lords, reasoned that the principle of liability was not based on negligence but on the nature of the defendant's use of his land. When a person brings something onto his land that is not naturally there and that thing is likely to cause damage if it escapes, the person undertakes the risk of its escape. The defendant's use of the land for a reservoir was a non-natural use, and the water was a dangerous substance that caused damage when it escaped. Lord Cairns in the House of Lords added the requirement that the use be non-natural, distinguishing activities that are part of the ordinary use of land.

Rylands v. Fletcher established the strict liability principle for abnormally dangerous or non-natural uses of land. In England, the doctrine remains relatively narrow, but in the United States, the Restatement of Torts expanded it into a broader doctrine of strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities. The case influenced the development of environmental liability, hazardous waste regulation, and blasting liability, among other areas. It remains a cornerstone of strict liability theory.