year one tort law case brief #1

Rylands v. Fletcher – (strict liability)

Rylands v. Fletcher, 3 H & C 774, 159 Eng.Rep. 737, L.R. 1 Ex. 265 (1866)

BY: James F. Polk – AISOL YEAR ONE STUDENT

—————————————- direct snips from the case itself ——————————

case: 

  • In that state of things the reservoir of the Defendants was constructed. It was constructed by them through the agency and inspection of an engineer and contractor. Personally, the Defendants appear to have taken no part in the works, or to have been aware of any want of security connected with them. As regards the engineer and the contractor, we must take it from the case that they did not exercise, as far as they were concerned, that reasonable care and caution which they might have exercised, taking notice, as they appear to have taken notice, of the vertical shafts filled up in the manner which I have mentioned. However, my Lords, when the reservoir was constructed, and filled, or partly filled, with water, the weight of the water bearing upon the disused and imperfectly filled-up vertical shafts, broke through those shafts. The water passed down them and into the horizontal workings, and from the horizontal workings under the close of the Defendants it passed on into the workings under the close of the Plaintiff, and flooded his mine, causing considerable damage, for which this action was brought.
  •      The Court of Exchequer, when the special case stating the facts to which I have referred, was argued, was of opinion that the Plaintiff had established no cause of action. The Court of Exchequer Chamber, before which an appeal from this judgment was argued, was of a contrary opinion, and the Judges there unanimously arrived at the conclusion that there was a cause of action, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to damages.

Blackburn laid down the law principle that guides:  A neighbor who brought something on his own property (which was not naturally there), harmless to others so long as it is confined to his own property, but which he knows will be mischievous if it gets on his neighbour’s, should be obliged to make good the damage which ensues if he does not succeed in confining it to his own property. But for his act in bringing it there no mischief could have accrued, and it seems but just that he should at his peril keep it there, so that no mischief may accrue, or answer for the natural and anticipated consequence. And upon authority this we think is established to be the law, whether the things so brought be beasts, or water, or filth, or stenches.

Cranworth’s view:

  • My Lords, I concur with my noble and learned friend in thinking that the rule of law was correctly stated by Mr. Justice Blackburn in delivering the opinion of the Exchequer Chamber. If a person brings, or accumulates, on his land anything which, if it should escape, may cause damage to his neighbour, he does so at his peril. If it does escape, and cause damage, he is responsible, however careful he may have been, and whatever precautions he may have taken to prevent the damage.
  • In considering whether a Defendant is liable to a Plaintiff for damage which the Plaintiff may have sustained, the question in general is not whether the Defendant has acted with due care and caution, but whether his acts have occasioned the damage.
  • This is the principle of law applicable to cases like the present, and I do not discover in the authorities which were cited anything conflicting with it.
  • The doctrine appears to me to be well illustrated by the two modern cases in the Court of Common Pleas referred to by my noble and learned friend. I allude to the two cases of Smith v. Kenrick 7 CB 564 , and Baird v. Williamson 15 CB (NS) 376 . In the former the owner of a coal mine on the higher level worked out the whole of his coal, leaving no barrier between his mine and the mine on the lower level, so that the water percolating through the upper mine flowed into the lower mine, and obstructed the owner of it in getting his coal. It was held that the owner of the lower mine had no ground of complaint.
  • The Defendants, in order to effect an object of their own, brought on to their land, or on to land which for this purpose may be treated as being theirs, a large accumulated mass of water, and stored it up in a reservoir. The consequence of this was damage to the Plaintiff, and for that damage, however skilfully and carefully the accumulation was made, the Defendants, according to the principles and authorities to which I have adverted, were certainly responsible.
  •      I concur, therefore, with my noble and learned friend in thinking that the judgment below must be affirmed, and that there must be judgment for the Defendant in Error.

—————————————- direct snips from the case itself ——————————

 

Fact Summary: Plaintiff sued because his mine was flooded as a result of the reservoir that his neighbor built on his land.  The neighbor did not seem to have had any prior knowledge that the flooding was about to occur and the flooding did in fact occur through some underground and covered up mine shafts.  The Plaintiff sued and won.  The trial court found for Plaintiff; the appellate court affirmed the Defendant appealed to the House of Lords, which also affirmed.

Synopsis of Rule of Law: It is the fact that because of the work on their land caused the resultant flooding of the neighbor’s land that the Defendant is liable for the damage.

Issue:  Is the Defendant liable for the damage to his neighbor’s mine because of having constructed a reservoir on his land?

Held: Because of the damage to the Plaintiff’s mine caused by the construction on the Defendant’s land by the Defendant of the reservoir, the Defendant is liable.  The damage is proof of lack of sufficient proper and due care to keep what they built from damaging their neighbor.

Concurrence: The concurrence of Cranworth with Blackburn is based on the idea that if damage is done to a neighbor based on the changing of one’s land, the one who did the work should be the one liable.