Case: Rylands v Fletcher (1868) [England] p.

676-682

Parties: Plaintiff - Rylands (mine owner)

Defendant - Fletcher (mill owner)

Procedural History:

Facts: Defendant built a pond or reservoir to supply water for their mill.
Defendant built the pond directly over vertical shafts once used for mining,
though it looked like solid earth. When they filled the pond with water, the
shafts gave way and the water flooded down, and ended up flooding plaintiff's mine
as well.

Issue: Whether there is liability when the defendant non-negligently, lawfully,

and unintentionally causes plaintiff losses when an entity on defendant's land
escapes. - Yes

Holding: Verdict for plaintiff. There is strict liability for entities you hold
on your property.

Reasoning: There is no negligence or intent here, so liability is based on

strict liability.
In the Exchequer Chamber, Judge Blackburn poses the argument that if you bring a
something onto your land that is harmless, but dangerous if it escapes, then you
are strictly liable if it escapes. You bring the entity onto the land at your own
peril if it escapes. In the House of Lords, the court affirms, but with different
reasoning. The court talks about the difference between non-natural uses vs.
natural accumulations. In non-natural uses, a defendant is strictly liable to a
neighbor if the substance escapes. For natural accumulations, there is no
liability for escape. The House of Lords's rationale has a good policy
justification: internalizing external costs.