61
|
P a g e
answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape". No right
"
to enjoy property" exists in UK black-letter law, and it is this decision upon which
in the area.
This doctrine was further developed by English courts, and made an immediate impact
on the law. Prior to
Rylands
,
English courts had not based their decisions in similar cas-
es on
and had focused on the intention behind the actions rather than the
nature of the actions themselves. In contrast,
Rylands
imposed strict liability on those
found detrimental in such a fashion without having to prove a duty of care or negli-
gence, which brought the law into line with that relating to public reservoirs and
marked a significant doctrinal shift. Academics have criticised it, however, both for the
economic damage such a doctrine could cause and for its limited applicability.
The tort of
Rylands v Fletcher
has been disclaimed in various jurisdictions, including
Scotland, where it was described as "a heresy that ought to be extirpated", and Austral-
ia, where th
chose to destroy the doctrine in
Within England and Wales, however,
Rylands
remains valid law, although
the decisions in
and
make it clear that it is no longer an independent
tort, but instead a sub-tort of nuisance.
In 1860
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 con-
struction, instead contracting out to a competent engineer. While building it, the con-
tractors discovered a series of old coal shafts and passages under the land filled loosely
with soil and debris, which joined up with Thomas Fletcher's adjoining mine. Rather
than blocking these shafts up, the contractors left them. On 11 December 1860, shortly
after being filled for the first time, Rylands's reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher's
mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher pumped the wa-
ter out, but on 17 April 1861 his pump burst, and the mine again began to flood. At this
point a mines inspector was brought in, and the sunken coal shafts were discovered.
Fletcher brought a claim against John Rylands, the owner, and Jehu Horrocks, the man-
ager of Rylands's reservoir on 4 November 1861.
The tort o
was inapplicable, because the law at the time did not class one-off
events as "trespass"; an action was instead taken under the tort of
The case
was first heard by
and a special jury in September 1862 at the Liverpoo
a court order led to an arbitrator from th
being appointed in De-
cember 1864. The arbitrator decided that the contractors were liable for negligence,
since they had known about the old mine shafts. Rylands, however, had no way of know-
ing about the mine shafts, and so was not.
Smith v Crossley Brothers Ltd [1951] 95 SJ 655, CA – vicarious liability relative to
an extreme act of horseplay
Rose v Plenty
Rose v Plenty
[1976] 1
WLR 141 is a
case, on the issue of where an
is acting within the course of their employment.
was
tenuously found under
test for course of employment, which
states that an employer will be held liable for either a wrongful act they have
authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of an act that was authorised.
