John Rylands V. Thomas Fletcher

ohn Rylands vs. Thomas Fletcher

The case of John Rylands vs. Thomas Fletcher took place in the early 1860’s starting from 1860 to 1868. In this case, the plaintiff (Fletcher) owns a land of mines. The defendant (Rylands) is the owner of a mill in the same neighborhood who made a reservoir store water to be used for the mill. The plaintiff (Fletcher) sued the defendant ( Rylands) for the damages caused which is the water from the defendants reservoir overflowing onto the plaintiff’s land causing damage to his mines. Under the land of the defendant to construct the reservoir old mining passages were found. The shafts had been filled with soil and rubbish which no one was aware of. This lead to the flooding of the reservoir. The reservoir

The case went through four different courts. The first was the summer session which took place in 1861 in the local court of Liverpool assizes. The Liverpool court found in favor of Thomas Fletcher based on trespassing and nuisance. Rylands then successfully gained an order for the case to be heard by the court of exchequer before three judges where two judges ruled in the favor of the defendant ( Rylands) based on the fact that his actions were all legal and he had no ill-intent or

The judges were in favour of Fletcher based on damages, trespassing, and nuisance. Rylands then appealed to the House of Lords which dismissed his appeal and agreed with the court of appeal (Exchequer Chamber). The judgement from the house of lords was injunctions to stop the activity and or payment of damages for injury to land. The main issue before the court was whether strict liability could be applied in the same way as trespassing or nuisance. In 1860, trespass could only succeed if culpability in the form of negligence or willful intent could be proven. Fletcher argued that the enjoyment of his land had been invaded by Rylands and that strict liability should be applied making Rylands liable for the damages. Rylands, on the other hand, argued that all his actions were lawful and reasonable making him not liable for the damages caused by a simple accident.

The court ruling found in favor of Fletcher and Rylands was held liable for the property damage to the mine. Rylands was ordered to pay for the damages