SYNOPSIS ON THE MERITS OF

RYLANDS V. FLETCHER BY JOHN

MURPHY
NAME: Ishita Mishra
2130035

ID NUMBER:

This article tries to assess whether Rylands v.

Fletcher had a considerable and a maintainable
claim. The writer pursues the argument that
Rylands v. Fletcher is a distinct and strong juristic
term and is viable. The writer raises two questions
in this article; the first being, clubbing the rule
developed in Rylands v. Fletcher under the banner
of private nuisance. He contends that this is
already a confusing area of law and that adding
this interpretation under this law would further
lead to unintelligibility.
The second question
discusses inclusion of Rylands v. Fletchers rule
under the law of negligence. The writer goes on to
argue that such a practice will deny claimants
whose actions fall under Rylands v. Fletcher to face
evidential difficulties. We shall first discuss the first
contention.
In England there is a close relationship between
nuisance and Rylands v. Fletcher when compared
to each other because torts centered on land
operate in the same sphere. However, nuisance
insists that the claimant should have a proprietary
interest in the land affected. Rylands v. Fletcher
places no such restriction on the claimant.
The origin of nuisance can be traced to 1166 and it
was, an action concerned with interferences that
wholly deprived a man of 'the opportunity of
exercising
his
rights
over
land.

This tort need not have any personal injury but

requires that the claimant owns land and only use
will not suffice. The rule under Rylands v. Fletcher
places no such condition on the claimant. The
reason behind this, the writer says is the fact that
Rylands v. Fletcher has its origins in an
industrializing nation and addresses modern
concerns while the tort of nuisance provided
freeholders with a remedy in case of noysance. In
Rylands v. Fletcher annoyance is not a necessary
condition, it is centered on an accumulation on the
claimants land, which the defendant can be held
responsible
for.
Also, Rylands v. Fletcher covers the question of all
forms of physical harm while nuisance will only
cover
harm
to
land.
The writer summarizes the comparison between
the two varieties of torts by saying the rule in
Rylands v Fletcher should properly be confined to
physical harm caused by one-off escapes while
nuisance
should
be
confined
to
ongoing
interferences with amenities associated with land.
Negligence and Rylands v. Fletcher have several
different elements that are needed to establish
either.
Rylands
v.
Fletcher
requires
that
dangerous element should have been brought
onto the defendants land for his own purposes.
Also the thing that escapes has been interpreted
as mischievous and dangerous. Rylands v. Fletcher
is used to establish a form of liability for ultrahazardous activities. It is usually used to impose
liabilities on large-scale industrial enterprises. We
see that the use of the tort of strict liability and
that of negligence is differentiated and the

assertion that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher has

lost its preeminence is not true.
Through this article the writer has attempted to
expose some of the misunderstandings associated
with Rylands v Fletcher liability that have twice
been asserted in the House of Lords. It has
endeavoured to paint a picture of the juridical
uniqueness of the rule and something of its utility
as a discrete tort. It has additionaly pointed out
that the continued vitality of the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher forms a useful residual mechanism for
securing environmental protection by individuals
affected by harmful escapes from polluting
heavyweight
industrialists.