3. Ryiands v. Fletcher
This was the position when, in the 19th century, negligence as an independent basis of liability appeared upon the scene.[5994] Its advent was stimulated by, and in turn contributed to the growing belief that liability must be based on fault; a belief that became as firmly entrenched in England as it was in contemporary continental science.[5995]"1 Again, however, we see the interesting phenomenon that at the moment of triumph a shadow began to fall over the principle of "no liability without fault", for from what were then generally regarded as "vestigial anomalies of an uncivilized past"[5996] (namely strict liability on account of cattle trespass or of the flow of filth from house or office)[5997] there arose a principle that could well have become the germ of a generalized risk-based liability.
Characteristically, of course, the bold step[5998] [5999] was taken not by the legislator but by a court of law. "We think", pronounced Blackburn J, in the famous case of Ryiands v. Fletcher,5'5"that the true rule of law is that the person who, for his own purposes, brings on his lands, and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he docs not do so, he is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape."
In Rylands v. Fletcher itself, this pronouncement applied to water escaping from a reservoir on the land of the defendants,3"6 breaking into a disused shaft of an abandoned mine and flooding the plaintiffs adjoining mine through communicating passages. Soon the rule was extended from water to fire[6000] [6001] and electricity,[6002] ^as[6003] [6004] aiK> explosives,3311 chemical fumes,[6005] flag-poles,[6006] poisonous trees[6007] and even (intangible) vibrations.[6008] But in the long run it has not been allowed to display its potential "as a catalyst for a broader and more systematic pattern of loss distribution pertaining to accidents caused by dangerous operations".[6009] From its inception, it was hedged in by the rather awkward requirement that the storage of the object on the defendant's property must have constituted a "non-natural user" of the land.[6010] An even more effective brake was applied to the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher, however, when in 1947 the House of Lords came down in favour of a rather restrictive interpretation of the "escape"- requirement: it is not sufficient that the dangerous substance has escaped from the control of the defendant—it must in fact have left his land.[6011] This move not only introduced artificial and haphazard distinctions into the law[6012] but reduced the rule to a rather peripheral existence as another one of the exceptional and anomalous instances of no-fault liability.339 As in Germany, fault has thus retained its prominent position in the theory of loss adjustment;340 and attempts have not been wanting either, to rationalize the isolated instances of strict liability in terms of a generalized fault requirement.341 4.
More on the topic 3. Ryiands v. Fletcher:
- A short history of legislative interpretation
- Liability for damage caused by animals
- “Agriculture” refers to the cultivation of crops and the raising of animals for the “4Fs”: food, feed, fuel, and fiber.
- Binding precedent in relation to specific courts
- The Law of Citations
- Direct representation: introduction
- Tinashe Chigwata, Jaap de Visser and ZemelakAyele
- Strict Liability
- Table of Contents
- The Codification Movement
- Archaic and Pre-Classical Law
- 2. CREATION AND TERMINATION OF SLAVERY
- Introduction
- The Basilika
- Fidepromissio and the transition to fideiussio