STRICT LIABILITY 1: THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

Topic of the day

- The case of Rylands v Fletcher

- The scope of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher

- The fundamental differences between Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher

- The application of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher in Nigeria

- Defences of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher

- Damages of the rule in Rylands v Fletcher 

THE CASE OF RYLANDS V FLETCHER

Rylands v Fletcher is a landmark case in English tort law that established the principle of strict liability for harm caused by escaping substances on one's land. The case involved the defendant, who constructed a reservoir on his land, which caused flooding on the plaintiff's land due to the reservoir's failure. The court held that the defendant was liable for the damages under the rule known as the "rule in Rylands v Fletcher." which states that a person who brings or accumulates something on their land, which is not naturally there, and it escapes and causes damage to another's land, is strictly liable for the damage, regardless of fault.

THE SCOPE OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

The rule in Rylands v Fletcher establishes strict liability for harm caused by things brought onto one's land that escape and cause damage to another's property. The key elements include the defendant bringing or accumulating something on their land, which is not naturally there, and it escaping and causing damage. See the cases of Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc and Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.

THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NUISANCE AND THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

Nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher are both torts related to interference with land, but they have fundamental differences. These includes;

1. Nuisance: Nuisance is a broader concept covering both private and public nuisances. Private nuisance involves unreasonable interference with a person's use or enjoyment of their land, while public nuisance affects the general public. See the cases of Sturges v Bridgman and Hunter v Canary Wharf which illustrates the different aspects of nuisance.

2. Rule in Rylands v Fletcher: This rule involves strict liability for harm caused by substances brought onto one's land, which then escape and cause damage to another's property. It applies regardless of negligence. See the cases of Rylands v Fletcher itself and Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc.

THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER IN NIGERIA

In Nigeria, the rule in Rylands v Fletcher has been applied in cases involving strict liability for harm caused by the escape of substances on one's land. While the principle originated from English law, it has been adopted and applied by Nigerian courts. See the cases of Esso West Africa Inc v Attorney-General of Lagos State and Okolo v Nigerian Tobacco Co Ltd, where the courts upheld the principle of strict liability for damages caused by escaping substances, emphasizing the importance of foreseeability and the escape of the substance as key elements in establishing liability.

DEFENCES OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

The defences available in cases involving the rule in Rylands v Fletcher typically includes the following;

1. Act of God: This defence applies when the escape of the substance causing harm is due to an unforeseeable natural event beyond the defendant's control. See the case of Nichols v Marsland.

2. Act of a Stranger: If a third party's intervention causes the escape of the substance, the defendant may not be liable. See the case of Green v Chelsea Waterworks Co which is a relevant case illustrating this defence.

3. Plaintiff's Default: If the plaintiff's own actions contribute to the harm, the defendant may argue that the plaintiff's conduct was the main cause. This defence was upheld in the case of Perry v Kendricks Transport Ltd.

DAMAGES OF THE RULE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

The damages awarded in cases involving the rule in Rylands v Fletcher typically aim to compensate the plaintiff for the harm suffered due to the escape of substances on the defendant's land. These damages can include:

1. Compensatory Damages: These aim to restore the plaintiff to the position they were in before the harm occurred. They cover the cost of repairing or replacing damaged property. See the case of Rylands v Fletcher.

2. Consequential Damages: These are damages that result indirectly from the escape of the substance, such as loss of profits or loss of use of property. See the case of Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc which is an example of where consequential damages were considered.

3. Injunctions: In some cases, the court may grant an injunction to prevent further harm by requiring the defendant to take specific actions to prevent future escapes. See the case of Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council which is an example of where an injunction was granted.