Law Weblog

Rylands and Fletcher not necessarily strict liability. D must recognise risk.

Transco Plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council [2003] HL
[Rylands v Fletcher – factor includes damage which could be insured against]
The defendant council owned a block of flats. Without negligence on thier part the mains water pipe carrying water into the flats failed and a considerable quantity of water escaped into the ground causing damage.

Held: The damage or mischief test in Rylands v Fletcher was not easy to satisfy. D had to do something he recognised, or should have recognised, as giving rise to an exceptionally high risk. Further, the defendant’s use of the land had to be extraordinary and unusual, by contemporary standards, possibly by asking if it was something against which he could have insured. In the instant case, the council, was carrying out a routine function which did not raise any special hazard, and it constituted a natural use of the land. The question of strict liability did not therefore arise. Rylands v Fletcher should not be subsumed into the general law of negligence.

Whole case here.