Critically analyse Ryland v Fletcher along with a purpose rule related to liability which you think could be applied in today’s era of industrial expansions and its after effects.
Note:-
The case of Rhyland v Fletcher is a landmark in tort law in history. For this we must understand what is a tort, what is the meaning of a tort. What is strict liability and what actually happened in Ryland v Fletcher? Does it need modification? If yes then how to modify it to work in the modern world?
What is Tort?
A tort is when someone does something wrong (or fails to do something they should have done) that causes harm or injury to another person. It is a type of civil wrong, meaning the injured person can go to court and ask for compensation. In simple terms, a tort is a wrong act that is not a crime or a breach of contract, but still harms someone. Examples include assault, defamation (libel or slander), negligence, trespass, or malicious prosecution.
definition of tort- many authors have defined the term tort but so far its definition is still growing and it would be difficult to accept any single definition which is the definition of tort in a wholesome manner.
As per Winfield :- Tortious liability arises from breach of duty primarily fixed by law, this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is reasonable by an action for unliquidated damages.
As per salmond- A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of contract or breach of a trust or merely equitable obligation.
What is Strict Liability?
It is defined as a duty that makes a person liable without any fault on his part, irrespective of intention, negligence, or consideration
Rule of strict liability is that any person for his own purpose brings on his land, collects and keeps anything which is likely to do mischief and might escape then it must be kept at his peril and he is prima facia answerable for all the damage which is a natural consequence of his escape.
If there are no exceptions it is absolute liability which is a different concept.
Rylands v Fletcher started the idea that “if you keep dangerous things you must pay is harm happens”
Ryland v Fletcher
Thomas Ryland: the defendant was a mill owner who had hired contractors and engineers for the construction of a reservoir at a site to the plaintiffs property. During the process of excavation for the reservoir the contractors found five vertical shafts and horizontal passages which they failed to properly seal off.
John Fletcher: The plaintiff held a lease for red house colliery a set of coal mines and was in charge of operating the said mines, he came across the old and disused shafts during his work and worked his mines up to spot where they met with forgotten passages which were connected with the shafts right beneath the site.
After the construction of the reservoir and once it was partially filled with water, one of the shafts gave away and the water flooded the red house colliery through the underground passages
In the lawsuit, Fletcher initiated legal action against Ryland for damage caused to his coal mines due to negligence.
The case was first brought to trial at the court of Liverpool, which sided with the defendant, stating that there was no trespass or nuisance.
Then the case was argued in the court of exchequer of pleas where it was examined on two grounds first whether the defendant could be held liable for the contractors actions and second whether the defendant was responsible for the damage despite their lack of negligence. The court reached a unanimous decision that the defendant was not liable for the actions of the contractors but had mixed views on the second issue.
It was decided by Justice Blackburn, who delivered the judgement of the court os exchequer chamber, and the house of lords that there are certain requirements for this tort that the claimant must show, like
- that the defendant bought something into his land
- That the defendant made a non natural use of his land
- The thing was likely to do mischief if it escaped
- The thing did escape and cause damage
Issues raised after the judgement were that
- Whether there was negligence on the part of the defendant
- Whether the defendant was to be held liable for the negligence of the contractor.
- Whether the plaintiff was eligible to receive damages from the defendant
Defences In Rylands V Fletcher
- Consent
- Common benefit
- Act of stranger
- Statutory authority
- Act of god
- Default of the claimant
Evolution Of Strict Liability In India
In India the concept of natural use of land differs from that in other countries. For instance, large volumes of water are deemed essential for activities such as irrigation by farmers. This practice may be in contrast with the definition of “non-natural use of land” as laid out in Rylands v Fletcher . Like in the case of
Madras Railway co v Zamindar (1974)
The defendant zamindar owned land adjacent to a railway track owned by a railway company. The defendant had water tanks on his land built not just for his use but also for thousands of his people. Two of these tanks busrts causing water to escape and damaging the plaintiffs property and three railway tracks owned by the railway company and as a result the railway company filed a lawsuit against the defendant to seek compensation for the damage. But in the ruling, the privy council considered the tanks to be essential for sustaining thousands of riots and deemed it unfair to impose sole liability on the landowner. The council concluded that the rylands v fletcher ruling was not applicable then discharging the defendant of his liability and citing India’s unique conditions requiring water storage as a natural use of land.
Criticize Ryland V Fletcher
- Ambiguity of the word “non- natural use”- the judgement depends on what is a non natural use of land. In 1868, keeping water in a reservoir was non natural but today storing water, gas, or electricity is normal so zdefendants can easily escape liability.
- Ignores foreseeabilty- liability was imposed even if the damage was unforeseeable. Modern law generally requires forgeability of harm for fairness and without it rule seems to harsh.
- It is unsuitable for modern industries as many dangerous activities are essential for development and it does not fully deal with environmental damage or large scale industrial risks.
Cases showing the weakness of Ryland v fletcher
- Read v Lyons & co. (1947, UK)- a munitions factory exploded and a worker was injured. Rylands didn’t apply here because there was no escape of the dangerous thing outside the premises. This narrow interpretation of the word escape made the rule almost useless. Modern hazards often get injured within the premises too, but victims get no remedy under rylands.
- Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984, India)- Over 3000 people died and more than 5 lakh were affected due to leakage of toxic gas from union carbide factory. If rylands was applied here then the company could have escaped under the exceptions like act of third party instead Indian courts developed absolute liability in M.C.Mehta v union of India. This case showed us that rylands was inadequate for mass disasters.
Critisize Stirct Liability:-
As we know that strict liability is something which holds a person liable for harm caused by dangerous things bought onto their land irrespective of fault, negligence or intention. While it was progressive for its time, the rule has faced heavy criticism like
- Numerous exceptions- the doctrine has way too many exceptions and these exceptions make the rule inconsistent and reduce its effectiveness.
- No balance between risk and benefit- modern law focuses on balancing risk/ dangerous activity with public benefit which is utility, employment, economic growth and strict liability does not consider whether the activity is beneficial for the society or not.
- Fails in mass disaster cases- In large scale tragedies eg Bhopal gas leak 1984, vizag gas leak 2020 strict liability was inadequate because victims needed absolute compensation not excuses through exceptions and this is the reason why courts in India had to evolve absolute liability to fill this gap and give justice to the people.
Modification:-
We can make it stronger by changing from strict liability which has exceptions to absolute liability where no excuses are allowed for handling very dangerous things chemicals, nuclear plants, toxic waste etc
Cover modern risks not just “escape” but also pollution, gas leak, oil spills, industrial accidents and environmental harm.
Balance fairness by not punishing ordinary people for everyday activities like water pipes or domestic gas. Only target hazardous and non essential risks.
There should be victim protection to ensure quick and fair compensation to people harmed even if the company says it wasn’t at fault.
Does It Need Any Modification? Why?-
Yes it does need modification because the old rule was made in 1868 when industries were small and dangers were limited. But today we have huge factories, nuclear plants, toxic chemicals and environmental concerns. So if we keep the old rule as it is, many victims of industrial accidents and pollution won’t get justice. That’s why courts have modified it into absolute liability to match modern needs.
As per Former Chief Justice of India P. N. Bhagwati
- The old rule of strict liability from rylands v fletcher is outdated for Morden india because it was made in 1868 in England when industries were small and not as dangerous as today.
- In India we need a new principle because hazardous industries pose serious risks to workers, the public and the environment
- If an industry engages in a dangerous or inherently hazardous activity and harm is caused then it must be held absolute liable no excuses no exceptions.
Conclusion
I understand that Ryland v Fletcher was the foundation of strict liability in tort law and it inspired courts around the world to hold people liable for dangerous activities, even without negligence but because of its limits modern courts and legislatures modified it and India expanded it into absolute liability in M.C.Mehta which influenced environmental law, industrial safety and consumer protection in the modern world.
Rylands v. Fletcher was made in the 19th century and worked for that period, but it is not applicable to the modern world where industries and environmental risks are much greater. Since strict liability has many exceptions and fails to give complete justice, the courts now follow the rule of absolute liability, which holds industries fully responsible for the harm they cause.
Citiations
https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/2D83321D-590A-4646-83F6-9D8E84F5AA3C.pdf
https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-ug/case-analysis-rylands-v-fletcher
Author Name- Hiba is a BBA LLB Student.
