Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law.

As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage (equivalent to £111,200 in 2023).

Baron Bramwell, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance.

Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in Rylands v Fletcher".

In contrast, Rylands imposed strict liability on those found detrimental in such a fashion without having to prove a duty of care or negligence, which brought the law into line with that relating to public reservoirs and marked a significant doctrinal shift.

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",[6] and Australia, where the High Court chose to destroy the doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd.

While building it, the contractors 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.

[9] On 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands' reservoir burst and flooded Fletcher's mine, the Red House Colliery, causing £937 worth of damage.

[13] The case was first heard by Judge John Mellor and a special jury in September 1862 at the Liverpool Assizes;[14] a court order led to an arbitrator from the Exchequer of Pleas being appointed in December 1864.

Baron Bramwell, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance.

"[27] Tindal, CJ: Charge to the Grand Jury at Bristol on the occasion of the 1832 riots over the rejection in the House of Lords of the Reform Bill.

[33] The outcome of Rylands meant that judges would again impose strict liability on defendants who accumulated dangerous things on their land without any need to prove negligence or wrongful intent.

[34] The decision in Rylands initially faced little criticism within England and Wales, although many American scholars and judges of the time felt that judgment was a poor one.

Chief Justice Charles Doe of the New Hampshire Supreme Court wrote that it "put a clog upon natural and reasonably necessary uses of matter and tend to embarrass and obstruct much of the work which it seems to be a man's duty carefully to do".

[36][a] Glofcheski, writing in the Hong Kong Law Journal, notes that "the doctrine has not flourished... a tort imposing strict liability should be closely interpreted and circumspectly applied".

This is for two reasons; firstly, it is a case of very limited applicability, and it has been suggested that it be folded into a general principle of strict liability for "ultra-hazardous" activities.

A subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling in 2010 found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of economic harm, raising the legal burden of proof but not invalidating Rylands as precedent law.

[47][48] Mineral rights in the subsurface seem to be preferred over the landowner's rights by the Mineral Tenure Act or the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act in British Columbia[49] (also a common law province) so that recourse to Rylands is quite limited, as case law has developed over liability "to compensate the owner of a surface area for loss or damage caused by the entry, occupation or use of that area" (MTA) and "compensation for nuisance and disturbance from the entry, occupation or use" (PNGA).

[61] In Cambridge Water Lord Goff opined that the rule in Rylands should not further be developed, and that rather than being an independent tort it should be instead considered a sub-tort of nuisance.

Subsequently, Transco disapproved of the Australian decision in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd to absorb Rylands into the general law of negligence,[62] deciding that Rylands should continue to exist but, as Lord Bingham said, as a "sub-species of nuisance...while insisting upon its essential nature and purpose; and...restate it so as to achieve as much certainty and clarity as is attainable".

[66] John Murphy, Professor of Common Law at the University of Manchester, agrees with Nolan,[67] and makes the additional point that nuisance is focused on a loss of enjoyment to land, not physical damage as Rylands is.

[79] In Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Lord Bingham stated obiter that "I do not think the mischief or danger test should be at all easily satisfied.

In Musgrove v Pandelis, a car filled with petrol was considered "non-natural", while in Rainham Chemical Works Ltd v Belvedere Fish Guano Co Ltd,[57] so was the operation of a munitions factory during war-time.

[82] There is no single concrete test to define what is "non-natural", for reasons given by Lord Bingham in Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council;[60] "[non-natural use] is not a test to be inflexibly applied: a use may be extraordinary and unusual at one time or in one place but not so at another time or in another place...I also doubt whether a test of reasonable user is helpful, since a user may well be quite out of the ordinary but not unreasonable"...[83] There are several defences in England and Wales to a claim under Rylands v Fletcher; act of an unknown third party, contributory negligence, consent and statutory authority.

Initially it was sufficient to offset the case itself; with the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, courts instead apportion damages, taking into account how much of the harm was contributed by the claimant.

[89] The use of Rylands in Scots law, which was started in Mackintosh, finally came to an end in RHM Bakeries v Strathclyde Regional Council.

[101] Contrasting this, the principles have escaped destruction in Hong Kong, where the courts are yet to follow the examples set by Australia and England and Wales, and Rylands remains an independent tort.

[102] The rule of strict liability famously laid down by Blackburn, in Rylands v. Fletcher, proved to be rather ineffective with the passage of time to counter the dangerous use of one's property or an industry that produced substances or wastes detrimental to public health.

In this case, which involved the leakage of and the harm caused by Oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram industries in Delhi, the court held that keeping in mind the needs and demands of a modern society with highly advanced scientific knowledge and technology where for the sake of development programme, it was necessary to carry out inherently dangerous or hazardous industry, a new rule had to be laid down to adequately deal with the problems arising in a highly industrialised economy.

A small bump in the road was encountered in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India and doubts were expressed as to the quantum of damages payable.